If you are unfamiliar with this debate, here is a little summary. AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) presents her GND (Green New Deal) proposal. As part of that proposal she includes addressing racial disparities. She points out that the original New Deal was racist/had racist outcomes and she wants to avoid that with the GND. Jimmy, Tim and Arendt feel that identity politics should be left out of the GND. For various reasons, but generally speaking that it will make it more divisive and harder to pass the GND. Please do read and watch the above links to get a more full understanding of their viewpoints.

Again, I disagree with them, and I would like to tell you why.

First, a list of things that I think we agree on:
ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is real, it is fast upon us and it will have devastating impacts.
We may already be past the tipping point with ACC already, and if we aren't we are very close to it. Feedback loops are starting to kick in already and even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow it might already be too late.
If we can rein in the worst effects of ACC it will be a herculean task. Lifestyles will need to change dramatically. Modes of transportation, eating habits, living habits, farming and agriculture systems will all be up for discussion for change. Lots of people will need to make lifestyle changes even knowing that ACC is so far along that their efforts may be futile.
Every individual and every nation will have to be a part of the solution. We will need total buy in.
The GND is only in rough draft or "proposal" form right now. AOC's didn't write the first version, the Green Party has a version as part of their platform. Others have made proposals as well.

As to why I disagree on the GND containing ID Pol, please humor me with your imagination:
Imagine if you will if ACC or some other similar global catastrophic event had hit us during a different time in human history. Lets step back in history. Imagine the timeframe is the 1830's. A Green New Deal was proposed and people gathered around to hear the pitch about why they needed to get involved and support it. The eloquent presenter made a great case about how important it was to save the world and how everybody must participate to the fullest extent or humanity would come screeching to a halt. After the great presentation there was a moment for the audience to ask questions. A hand shot up in the back row. "Yes, you in the back, what is your question?"
The black slave who had had his hand up asked "after we save the world for generations to come, will you still own me? will you be able to beat and torture and rape me and my family members? Will I still live in bondage? Will my children be taken away from me to be sold into bondage for generations to come?"
The eloquent presenter was about to answer when another man shouted out his question.
This question came from a Lakota. He asked, "after we have saved the world for generations to come, will you let us hunt buffalo again? or do you plan to steal more of our land? are you going to round us up and hunt us down killing our children, raping our women, leaving the survivors to starve and freeze to death in the cold of winter? Will our children and grandchildren be taken by force and made to worship your god and speak your language? Please answer this so that we may decide if we want to help you."
Or maybe ACC came upon us mid 20th century. Maybe in the middle of WWII the fighting came to a halt and a great presentation was made about saving the world for generations to come. And a hand shot up from the side,
"when we get done saving the world for generations to come, will we still be herded onto rail cars and sent to our deaths?" asked the Jewish lady. "Will we be buried in giant pits by the hundreds, or once we have saved the world for generations to come will things be different?"
Another hand shot up, "after we have saved the world for generations to come do you still plan on dropping a giant bomb upon us? scorching and killing 50,000 people in the blink of an eye? Will our children suffer birth defects and cancer for all of their lives? Please answer this so that we may decide if we want to help you."
The eloquent presenter did his best to answer these questions, but the questioners were not satisfied. Their heads hung low and they went away unimpressed.

I hope you are seeing my point here. The notion of saving our world for generations to come is very appealing if you live a comfortable life. But the notion that we all make great strides to save this planet only to continue to live with such injustices? Save the planet so Michael Brown can lay dead and cold in the middle of the street? Save the planet so that Ira Hayes can lay dead in a ditch? Save the planet so that children in Flint can continue to be poisoned?

GND or not, if we are going to save this world for generations to come there will have to be lifestyle changes made. Carbon intensive hobbies may need to be given up. Flights to visit loved ones may need to be curtailed. Hamburgers may need to be forgone. Food may need to come from the garden. I personally am ready and willing to make big changes. To make sacrifices. To give up comforts.
But.
But.
But.....
If we go to all of the trouble to save this planet to be inhabitable for future generations but we still have
unarmed black men gunned down in the street,
blacks incarcerated at disproportionate and alarming rates,
immigrants having their children stolen away from them,
POC being victims of predatory lending practices,
children growing up drinking toxic water,
and a whole myriad of other racial disparity issues,
THEN WAS IT EVEN WORTH IT?

If we are going to save this planet then lets do it right and do it so everyone benefits. Anything less would be an injustice. Saving the planet so that the same old entitled pricks can keep abusing the same people that they have been abusing for the last 500 years just isn't worth the trouble.

And thats why I disagree with the aforementioned. I won't be part of throwing life preservers to comfortable white folk while throwing bricks to minorities. And I think AOC gets that. If she is going to put herself out there in such a bold way then I think we can conclude that she wants a total reboot of our system. Rather than infer that she is trying to undo her own proposal by overreaching, why not conclude that she wants not only a planet that is healthy for some humans, but a planet that is healthy for ALL humans. And if we get to bickering amongst ourselves and undermine her (or any others) serious attempts at mitigating climate change, well then I guess we as a species don't deserve to be around much longer.

@Outsourcing Is Treason
IMHO, i think that is to deny that for many people life is barely worth living as it currently is. The 22 veterans who commit suicide every day, the 170 people who die of opioid related issues suggest that.

“You get to keep living. You get to keep fighting for justice. You can’t do that when you’re dead.”

Having suffered the former and contemplated the latter, I can say that this kind of affliction requires a bit more insight than your pithy 40 word slam on a political blog allows to accurately appropriate in your larger argument, wouldn't you say?

#1 IMHO, i think that is to deny that for many people life is barely worth living as it currently is. The 22 veterans who commit suicide every day, the 170 people who die of opioid related issues suggest that.

up

1 user has voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

Having suffered the former and contemplated the latter, I can say that this kind of affliction requires a bit more insight than your pithy 40 word slam on a political blog allows to accurately appropriate in your larger argument, wouldn't you say?

as are most other life forms that I have observed. Habits are formed by repetition and are intrinsically intertwined with behaviors of all sorts, but particularly with those that bring us positive results. When our lives are simple and primarily focused on basic survival, those that bring us the necessities for life, these are remembered and repeated and reinforced automatically. This process is deeply rooted us and very difficult to resist or oppose. It is one of the most important tools in our evolutionary tool box. It is also one of the reasons that humans are deeply change averse and why we are in such deep shit environmentally.

The power of habits are well known to those of us who have ever struggled with addictions. Drugs and alcohol addiction are two well known habits that are particularly difficult to undo. But every behavior that we repeat, whether for basic survival or for simple pleasures, roots itself in the web of our daily existence and becomes virtually “indispensable”. This applies also to behaviors that, while pleasant or gratifying, are harmful or destructive.

So when a well reasoned and ultimately correct and essential course of action is proposed, such as the Green New Deal, that will change almost EVERYTHING about the way we live, the reflexive reaction by many will understandably be: HELL NO!

How are we going to convince ourselves and each other to do something that runs counter to our deeply rooted, and well loved, habits? Reasoning alone will not cut it, any more than it would for an unrepentant alcoholic in denial. Perhaps something along the lines of a 12 Step Program, complete with a “Higher Power” would be helpful, but only to those not still in denial.

@ovals49
I thought about writing this essay to include comparing ending our planet destroying habits to body/life/soul destroying habits such as drug and alcohol abuse.
I have not been thru treatment myself, but it seems to me that often when one quits drinking they also start working out, stop interacting with abusive people, and generally end some of their other bad habits. And if they don't they might fail. So they often do take an "all inclusive" approach to their ending substance abuse.
It would be interesting to know how many people can quit drinking while NOT quitting other unhealthy habits, compared to success rates of people who quit drinking while quitting other unhealthy habits.
Maybe you could speak to that?

as are most other life forms that I have observed. Habits are formed by repetition and are intrinsically intertwined with behaviors of all sorts, but particularly with those that bring us positive results. When our lives are simple and primarily focused on basic survival, those that bring us the necessities for life, these are remembered and repeated and reinforced automatically. This process is deeply rooted us and very difficult to resist or oppose. It is one of the most important tools in our evolutionary tool box. It is also one of the reasons that humans are deeply change averse and why we are in such deep shit environmentally.

The power of habits are well known to those of us who have ever struggled with addictions. Drugs and alcohol addiction are two well known habits that are particularly difficult to undo. But every behavior that we repeat, whether for basic survival or for simple pleasures, roots itself in the web of our daily existence and becomes virtually “indispensable”. This applies also to behaviors that, while pleasant or gratifying, are harmful or destructive.

So when a well reasoned and ultimately correct and essential course of action is proposed, such as the Green New Deal, that will change almost EVERYTHING about the way we live, the reflexive reaction by many will understandably be: HELL NO!

How are we going to convince ourselves and each other to do something that runs counter to our deeply rooted, and well loved, habits? Reasoning alone will not cut it, any more than it would for an unrepentant alcoholic in denial. Perhaps something along the lines of a 12 Step Program, complete with a “Higher Power” would be helpful, but only to those not still in denial.

The more I think about it, the more I don't think it's even a question of her being right or wrong. It goes way beyond considerations of identity politics.

I believe that the planet will survive no matter what, even if Mother Nature has to kill off the human species in order to do so.

But if humanity is to remain here, we're going to have to make drastic changes within a short period of time. As we know, radical change (or even ordinary change) does not come easy for the human psyche. Look at how deeply humans have become immersed in denial and delusion, trying to avoid dealing with what we're facing.

The good news is, it could very well be that the human race has reached the point where we're ready to make a "quantum leap" in our evolution. That there's something in our evolutionary process that will impel us into the change and carry us forward. If we can make that leap, we survive. If we fail to make the leap, the human species goes extinct. This won't be a superficial process. It will be profound, inherently and of necessity.

If we are able to reach past the human tendency to resist change, we will come out of it looking very, very different from how we are now. In the process of changing in order to save our planetary home, what it means to be human will have changed, in ways that we cannot conceive of now.

There was someone on Facebook recently who posted one of those "eat the rich" memes. One of the commenters went on a tirade, insisting that "billionaires are just people too". She claimed to be an environmentalist, and demanded that we stop picking on the billionaires, and instead focus on what's really important, like saving the planet.

I read that and scratched my head. How can we resolve the climate crisis if we allow the oligarchy to continue on its destructive way, devouring everything in its path? How can we deal with climate change if we keep looking at life, and relating to each other, in the ways we're accustomed to?

We can't. Because it's all connected. We create change, and we are changed.

Seen in this light, AOC isn't delivering an ultimatum but just stating a fact, although I don't know whether she is aware of the implications of what she's saying.

up

16 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

The more I think about it, the more I don't think it's even a question of her being right or wrong. It goes way beyond considerations of identity politics.

I believe that the planet will survive no matter what, even if Mother Nature has to kill off the human species in order to do so.

But if humanity is to remain here, we're going to have to make drastic changes within a short period of time. As we know, radical change (or even ordinary change) does not come easy for the human psyche. Look at how deeply humans have become immersed in denial and delusion, trying to avoid dealing with what we're facing.

The good news is, it could very well be that the human race has reached the point where we're ready to make a "quantum leap" in our evolution. That there's something in our evolutionary process that will impel us into the change and carry us forward. If we can make that leap, we survive. If we fail to make the leap, the human species goes extinct. This won't be a superficial process. It will be profound, inherently and of necessity.

If we are able to reach past the human tendency to resist change, we will come out of it looking very, very different from how we are now. In the process of changing in order to save our planetary home, what it means to be human will have changed, in ways that we cannot conceive of now.

There was someone on Facebook recently who posted one of those "eat the rich" memes. One of the commenters went on a tirade, insisting that "billionaires are just people too". She claimed to be an environmentalist, and demanded that we stop picking on the billionaires, and instead focus on what's really important, like saving the planet.

I read that and scratched my head. How can we resolve the climate crisis if we allow the oligarchy to continue on its destructive way, devouring everything in its path? How can we deal with climate change if we keep looking at life, and relating to each other, in the ways we're accustomed to?

We can't. Because it's all connected. We create change, and we are changed.

Seen in this light, AOC isn't delivering an ultimatum but just stating a fact, although I don't know whether she is aware of the implications of what she's saying.

This particular exchange, at the end, has had me stumped until I read this:

One of the commenters went on a tirade, insisting that "billionaires are just people too". She claimed to be an environmentalist, and demanded that we stop picking on the billionaires, and instead focus on what's really important, like saving the planet.

I read that and scratched my head. How can we resolve the climate crisis if we allow the oligarchy to continue on its destructive way, devouring everything in its path? How can we deal with climate change if we keep looking at life, and relating to each other, in the ways we're accustomed to?

We can't. Because it's all connected. We create change, and we are changed.

A shared vision of the ultimate destination is the Key to any great human endeavor.

The more I think about it, the more I don't think it's even a question of her being right or wrong. It goes way beyond considerations of identity politics.

I believe that the planet will survive no matter what, even if Mother Nature has to kill off the human species in order to do so.

But if humanity is to remain here, we're going to have to make drastic changes within a short period of time. As we know, radical change (or even ordinary change) does not come easy for the human psyche. Look at how deeply humans have become immersed in denial and delusion, trying to avoid dealing with what we're facing.

The good news is, it could very well be that the human race has reached the point where we're ready to make a "quantum leap" in our evolution. That there's something in our evolutionary process that will impel us into the change and carry us forward. If we can make that leap, we survive. If we fail to make the leap, the human species goes extinct. This won't be a superficial process. It will be profound, inherently and of necessity.

If we are able to reach past the human tendency to resist change, we will come out of it looking very, very different from how we are now. In the process of changing in order to save our planetary home, what it means to be human will have changed, in ways that we cannot conceive of now.

There was someone on Facebook recently who posted one of those "eat the rich" memes. One of the commenters went on a tirade, insisting that "billionaires are just people too". She claimed to be an environmentalist, and demanded that we stop picking on the billionaires, and instead focus on what's really important, like saving the planet.

I read that and scratched my head. How can we resolve the climate crisis if we allow the oligarchy to continue on its destructive way, devouring everything in its path? How can we deal with climate change if we keep looking at life, and relating to each other, in the ways we're accustomed to?

We can't. Because it's all connected. We create change, and we are changed.

Seen in this light, AOC isn't delivering an ultimatum but just stating a fact, although I don't know whether she is aware of the implications of what she's saying.

...by treating climate change and the economy as the same, you can put together a plan that’s at the scale of the challenge that we face. We’re on the verge of massive runaway climate change. And in order to prevent that, we need to extremely, rapidly transform our energy system and other sectors like agriculture. So in order to do that, we really need to understand climate change and economy as a single integrated unit.

The second upshot of understanding climate change and the economy as the same thing is that you can achieve a bunch of goals at once. And most specifically, you can redress the sort of savage economic and racial inequalities in this country through a form of climate investment that guarantees jobs, that prioritizes communities that have suffered disinvestment and pollution in the past that combines a significant increase in social services with an effort to change the way that we basically make a living and live well in this country.

I think people are willing to make the big changes, but the ball and chain of the fossil fuel, media, and MIC oligarchy will create every roadblock possible...and dividing people along class and race lines is an effective strategy to prevent progress.

I must admit to thinking we are past the tipping point...very close to an ice free arctic. However, I have lived as a gardener and homesteader for almost 50 years. I do still drive a gas vehicles (a 1986 Toyota truck, '63 Ford 4000 tractor, and a '92 Geo Tracker), but prefer riding a bike. My point being you don't have to wait for a GND. Start minimizing, walk as lightly as you can. Treat all people with kindness and respect.

Nancy Payola calls it a green new dream because she is part of the oligarchy that will crush it. I'm proud of the kids...but consider how effective their meeting with DiFi was.

I'm not disillusioned with the social aspects of the GND, but I am disappointed that US fossil fuel extraction and sales is NOT addressed. That is the weak link in my book. The idea that the fossil fuel oligarchs are the problem here must be front and center and not swept under the rug because they are too powerful.

up

13 users have voted.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

This is the exact same tactic that HRC employed to explain why we couldn’t begin to address income inequality until we had first “solved” gender inequality, and for the exact same purpose - because Identity Politics promotes competing interests over common interests for the purpose of maintaining stasis.

The moral imperative to avoid climate-based extinction does not need to be incentivized to competing interests.

@FutureNow
literally held that essaying to solve any problem or meet any challenge that did, not in and of itself, end racism or sexism or any other ism was, itself racist or sexist by diverting resources away from those causes. It was an illogical and irrational con, because government action cannot end those problems.

However, it one includes working on those issues, working to resolve them, as an inherent part of the attack on or solutin to other problems, then her moronic meme fails, because it is being met. "Look, dumbass, there is no instant solution, which is why you and your coeterie have never proposed one, let alone tried to implement one. Here we are working on the solution, and, not being engaged in mere divisive sophistry, we can multitask, so we are working on the solutions within and through this also pressing activity." We can then ignore the wails of the conservadem and GOP oligarchs and work on things like the climate emergency and the economic disaster because those other problems are being attacked and not merely talked about.

This is the exact same tactic that HRC employed to explain why we couldn’t begin to address income inequality until we had first “solved” gender inequality, and for the exact same purpose - because Identity Politics promotes competing interests over common interests for the purpose of maintaining stasis.

The moral imperative to avoid climate-based extinction does not need to be incentivized to competing interests.

up

11 users have voted.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

to keep us safe. It's not designed to get terrorists. It's designed to prop up the institutions of the status quo using a pointed, McCarthyite mechanism: Us vs Them, With Us or Against Us. The definition of porn from the 70s: "You know it when you see it," is the standard.

It's designed to tribe us up into Us vs Them and it's designed to be a dog whistle. If you want to fix that shit, fire some bedwetting cops who kill people with impunity. Smash the banks. End pay to play politics. Ban the Prison Industrial Complex.

This bullshit about taking on problems on many levels with IdPol as mechanism is laughable. It's no different than "eradicating terror is a force for Democracy".

From one of the Links:

...by treating climate change and the economy as the same...

No. Just fucking no. WTF!? Seriously? The only way climate change and the economy are the same is in how they fuck the little guy and destroy our planet. We got into this problem via treating the planet as an economic system. Meh...

AOC is a tool, IMO. Not a fan.

The GND sounds like a market based solution to me, and the commentary that springs up around it only seems to confirm that. I could be totally wrong on this. I have not researched it or her much - not much political research going on these days. This system is completely fucked. I'm only here for quality news, a sense of narrative, and solidarity.

Tulsi is most likely the only thing resembling a peaceful Leftist in the entire Democratic Party. And she's down with Israel as a "special partner". I think Tulsi is the furthest I could go at this point in time.

#6
literally held that essaying to solve any problem or meet any challenge that did, not in and of itself, end racism or sexism or any other ism was, itself racist or sexist by diverting resources away from those causes. It was an illogical and irrational con, because government action cannot end those problems.

However, it one includes working on those issues, working to resolve them, as an inherent part of the attack on or solutin to other problems, then her moronic meme fails, because it is being met. "Look, dumbass, there is no instant solution, which is why you and your coeterie have never proposed one, let alone tried to implement one. Here we are working on the solution, and, not being engaged in mere divisive sophistry, we can multitask, so we are working on the solutions within and through this also pressing activity." We can then ignore the wails of the conservadem and GOP oligarchs and work on things like the climate emergency and the economic disaster because those other problems are being attacked and not merely talked about.

@k9disc
GND not AOC's specific points. I'm speaking solely to the idea of including racial, and other "other" justice, as well as economic justice in whatever processes we implement to combat the climate crisis and the economic crisis (there is a worse one on its way). In the abstract, we shouldn't run from HRC's divisive meme which was intended solely to stall on all fronts while further enriching the oligarchs, banksters, rentiers and extraction industries. We should, instead, confront that bullshit head on by including anti-racist, anti-sexist and other anti-other processes and mechanisms in all of our proposed courses of action regarding anything any everything. The point is being able to say "shut up about that, we are attacking it, and if you reject this idea, which includes some of that attack, you are exposing yourself as the true racist that you always have been, and not a foe as you pretend. You said we have to do this first, and now is as first as we can get, it is embedded, so fait accompli, but only if you go ahead with this attack on climate/economic system/whatever."

to keep us safe. It's not designed to get terrorists. It's designed to prop up the institutions of the status quo using a pointed, McCarthyite mechanism: Us vs Them, With Us or Against Us. The definition of porn from the 70s: "You know it when you see it," is the standard.

It's designed to tribe us up into Us vs Them and it's designed to be a dog whistle. If you want to fix that shit, fire some bedwetting cops who kill people with impunity. Smash the banks. End pay to play politics. Ban the Prison Industrial Complex.

This bullshit about taking on problems on many levels with IdPol as mechanism is laughable. It's no different than "eradicating terror is a force for Democracy".

From one of the Links:

...by treating climate change and the economy as the same...

No. Just fucking no. WTF!? Seriously? The only way climate change and the economy are the same is in how they fuck the little guy and destroy our planet. We got into this problem via treating the planet as an economic system. Meh...

AOC is a tool, IMO. Not a fan.

The GND sounds like a market based solution to me, and the commentary that springs up around it only seems to confirm that. I could be totally wrong on this. I have not researched it or her much - not much political research going on these days. This system is completely fucked. I'm only here for quality news, a sense of narrative, and solidarity.

Tulsi is most likely the only thing resembling a peaceful Leftist in the entire Democratic Party. And she's down with Israel as a "special partner". I think Tulsi is the furthest I could go at this point in time.

It sets up an "ALL LIVES MATTER" argument over and over. I think systemic racism as a systemic behavior. Sponsored by the Big Corporate & the Oligarchs. You don't resolve a problem behavior by drawing attention to it and by basing your whole behavior mod structure around it.

That puts the PROBLEM in focus. A problem that is in focus is, well, in focus. One idea behind behavior mod is to make the PROBLEM disappear. If the PROBLEM remains disappeared long enough alternate habits are created, and the PROBLEM turns into a lesser more manageable problem. And with careful management and handling, the problem disappears entirely. When it crops up it's an aberration and odd.

These behavior mod angles and concepts have been applied to us for 100 years now, 103 to be exact. They turned America from a place where "He Kept Us Out of War" won in a landslide, and 9 months later you were a seditionist if you didn't want to Kill the Kaiser! Saddam's got WMDs. Bernie Bros.

IdPol is the latest iteration. It's like the balkanization of community. Demographic Bantustans. The people are carved up at will based upon predictable behavioral responses to triggers. "Hey, let's you and him fight..."

Basing your methodology around THE problem is a huge PROBLEM - a deal breaker for fixing a behavior.

Splitting vs Lumping is another behavior mod concept that I think is valid when it comes to politics. People are tired of being manipulated into ugly policy by lumping in something that is not germane, or easy to assume is not germane, to the policy objective. It's been the MO for at least my lifetime. It's base, and it's one of the things that is played out.

And that is not to say that we can't talk about racial issues and create policy to mitigate institutional racial disparity, but that is to say that a persistent IdPol add on to tangentially connected public policy is going to stoke institutional racism via manipulation by oligarchs.

And please don't give me a hard time about making racism a tangential issue. That is completely not the point. Institutional Racism is a prime issue in America.

When I ignore growling and pay the dog for doing the right thing I'm not making the growling a tangential issue. Growling is a prime issue. I just know that focus, particularly tangential focus on the growl, reinforces it. Better to leave growling work to discrete sessions and to avoid drawing attention to growling in general.

Corporate media, social media, and state propaganda (any difference at all?) all traffic in this kind of behavior mod. This stuff that I'm talking about IS happening. Bernie Bros. Bernie's got to make a statement on Reparations, apparently. I'd like to hear Biden's statement on Reparations before acceptance by the black community as Presidential. Heh... I'll hold my breath.

The same crude behavioral mod mechanisms are in play when it comes to groups of people. They are very simple buttons to push that are easily gamed out in terms of behavioral results.

I think it is a good idea to be a splitter and not a lumper at this time. We should be doing all we can to set up policy that is discrete and practical: Medicare for All, for instance. No need to talk about racial disparity or the historical racism of American public medicine. Do you want public health care yes or no? That coalition is vast and harder to manipulate than a means and needs based subsidy based upon demographic archetypes.

#6.1.1
GND not AOC's specific points. I'm speaking solely to the idea of including racial, and other "other" justice, as well as economic justice in whatever processes we implement to combat the climate crisis and the economic crisis (there is a worse one on its way). In the abstract, we shouldn't run from HRC's divisive meme which was intended solely to stall on all fronts while further enriching the oligarchs, banksters, rentiers and extraction industries. We should, instead, confront that bullshit head on by including anti-racist, anti-sexist and other anti-other processes and mechanisms in all of our proposed courses of action regarding anything any everything. The point is being able to say "shut up about that, we are attacking it, and if you reject this idea, which includes some of that attack, you are exposing yourself as the true racist that you always have been, and not a foe as you pretend. You said we have to do this first, and now is as first as we can get, it is embedded, so fait accompli, but only if you go ahead with this attack on climate/economic system/whatever."

@k9disc
maniipulation. The answer isn't to retreat and thereby buy into and support the status quo but to reisist being manipulated and to work to prevent said manipulation being effective on others. Puting the IdPol label on everything simply says "we're gonna sit this one out, sit on our hands and watch everything go down in flames". Yes, "black lives matter" can be manipulated into being devisive, as can "black lives don't matter". If "Inclusion" is to be the big divisive bogeyman, then how about we pen a list of everybody who is to be excluded and see whether or not that, too, is divisive. I got a hunch it will be. Exclusion and exclusivity is what got us here.

It sets up an "ALL LIVES MATTER" argument over and over. I think systemic racism as a systemic behavior. Sponsored by the Big Corporate & the Oligarchs. You don't resolve a problem behavior by drawing attention to it and by basing your whole behavior mod structure around it.

That puts the PROBLEM in focus. A problem that is in focus is, well, in focus. One idea behind behavior mod is to make the PROBLEM disappear. If the PROBLEM remains disappeared long enough alternate habits are created, and the PROBLEM turns into a lesser more manageable problem. And with careful management and handling, the problem disappears entirely. When it crops up it's an aberration and odd.

These behavior mod angles and concepts have been applied to us for 100 years now, 103 to be exact. They turned America from a place where "He Kept Us Out of War" won in a landslide, and 9 months later you were a seditionist if you didn't want to Kill the Kaiser! Saddam's got WMDs. Bernie Bros.

IdPol is the latest iteration. It's like the balkanization of community. Demographic Bantustans. The people are carved up at will based upon predictable behavioral responses to triggers. "Hey, let's you and him fight..."

Basing your methodology around THE problem is a huge PROBLEM - a deal breaker for fixing a behavior.

Splitting vs Lumping is another behavior mod concept that I think is valid when it comes to politics. People are tired of being manipulated into ugly policy by lumping in something that is not germane, or easy to assume is not germane, to the policy objective. It's been the MO for at least my lifetime. It's base, and it's one of the things that is played out.

And that is not to say that we can't talk about racial issues and create policy to mitigate institutional racial disparity, but that is to say that a persistent IdPol add on to tangentially connected public policy is going to stoke institutional racism via manipulation by oligarchs.

And please don't give me a hard time about making racism a tangential issue. That is completely not the point. Institutional Racism is a prime issue in America.

When I ignore growling and pay the dog for doing the right thing I'm not making the growling a tangential issue. Growling is a prime issue. I just know that focus, particularly tangential focus on the growl, reinforces it. Better to leave growling work to discrete sessions and to avoid drawing attention to growling in general.

Corporate media, social media, and state propaganda (any difference at all?) all traffic in this kind of behavior mod. This stuff that I'm talking about IS happening. Bernie Bros. Bernie's got to make a statement on Reparations, apparently. I'd like to hear Biden's statement on Reparations before acceptance by the black community as Presidential. Heh... I'll hold my breath.

The same crude behavioral mod mechanisms are in play when it comes to groups of people. They are very simple buttons to push that are easily gamed out in terms of behavioral results.

I think it is a good idea to be a splitter and not a lumper at this time. We should be doing all we can to set up policy that is discrete and practical: Medicare for All, for instance. No need to talk about racial disparity or the historical racism of American public medicine. Do you want public health care yes or no? That coalition is vast and harder to manipulate than a means and needs based subsidy based upon demographic archetypes.

dog training: Aggression is always reinforcing. It doesn't matter if you like it. Hate it. Or whatever. If it happens, it makes the likelihood of aggression more likely in the future. The End.

Same with IdPol stuff. And I'm not saying that discussions of race and inequality of humanity are Id Pol. But the further we get, policy-wise, from race and obvious racial issues, the more likely the IdPol card will be pulled - rightly or wrongly. The pulling of that card, the accusation of pulling that card, or the perception of that card having been pulled is the trap. It's vicious and completely divisive. It's exactly like aggression is always reinforcing.

It's like how the appearance of impropriety can be more damaging than the impropriety itself when it comes to public institutions. The appearance of IdPol angles is likely to put the focus on that aspect of the issue - hiding the issue and laying demographics at each other.

There is a reason it has been the dominant tool to shut down dissent from the Left over the last 30 years. Check your privilege on that Domestic Spying stuff, kid. Often done voluntarily and then defended vociferously as the correct path – while being blared all over the corporate media outrage machine. You can't escape it, and it's not operant. It happens before any discussion can happen.

I think it's better to keep the focus on the issue at hand - a Defense Bill a Defense Bill - so as to not to tribe up on ancillary issues. A Defense Bill with Redlining Initiative or Civilian Affirmative Action plan is not the way to go.

The New Deal was not a racist program. The New Deal left people out of the public sector, surely but so did the rest of America. Drawing attention to the racism in the program has no real connection to the viability and veracity of a repeat of the program or to the values the program espoused. Drawing attention to the racism in the New Deal is about fighting with white Leftists to split race from class, and it works, I think. Does damage to the new deal and damages the potential for solidarity.

Put up some simple ideologically cohesive ideas minus the "special interests" at the expense of the Special Interests (corporate). Let that stand on it's own. Get some wins for humans. Start assembling the tribes, building caucuses, solidarity, and intersectionality, instead of poking and stoking them and pitting ourselves against eachother.

#6.1.1.1.1
maniipulation. The answer isn't to retreat and thereby buy into and support the status quo but to reisist being manipulated and to work to prevent said manipulation being effective on others. Puting the IdPol label on everything simply says "we're gonna sit this one out, sit on our hands and watch everything go down in flames". Yes, "black lives matter" can be manipulated into being devisive, as can "black lives don't matter". If "Inclusion" is to be the big divisive bogeyman, then how about we pen a list of everybody who is to be excluded and see whether or not that, too, is divisive. I got a hunch it will be. Exclusion and exclusivity is what got us here.

@k9disc
interests; the poor, the elderly, the ill and infirm, those born the wrong color, those with mobility impairments or other physiological, psychological, mental or emotional difficulties, those differently gendered, "native americans", and, of course non-christians. And, of course, the young with their silly worries about survivability and everybody else unable or unready to weather the coming storm.

IOW, business as usual. Defense budgets, apt choice, are and should be defense budgets, no more and n less and, of course, our first and mostly only priority. Because Pavlov says so and we all, all of the rest of humanity (or is it just Merkans?) cannot think, cannot decry and dismiss the sophistry and cynicism of the divisive rhetoric that is certain to be spewed by the bourgeoisie. Well and good.

Maybe, we just get some market based "solutions", more predation upon the hoi polloi by the bourgeoisie and the corporations (and corporatists). I, of course, am of the hoi polloi, so I'll just hang with them and, maybe we'll find a way to just sit this one out, since we aren't invited anyway. Johnny Otis famously decided to be black, because in the US you have to be either black or white and the whites left sooooo much to be desired. Good role model for all of us, I think, or maybe, as a Californian, I could be Mexican, or Asian, or all of the above. Hell, I'm already easing my way into elderly and infirm too.

What, I wonder, would happen if the bourgeosie and corporations held another solely self-benefiting exploitation fest, painted it green, and nobody came all the same. I wonder iof that could be arranged? What if they had to do it right, inclusively, or fail? Might as well try to give it a shot, after all, we've got a lot of time left to try to force their hand. Otherwise, everybody else, all of us hoi polloi, starve and bake and drown because we cannot overcome the awesome hypnotic power of their divisive rhetoric and sophistry. Wait, do I hear a bell? I think so, gotta run.

dog training: Aggression is always reinforcing. It doesn't matter if you like it. Hate it. Or whatever. If it happens, it makes the likelihood of aggression more likely in the future. The End.

Same with IdPol stuff. And I'm not saying that discussions of race and inequality of humanity are Id Pol. But the further we get, policy-wise, from race and obvious racial issues, the more likely the IdPol card will be pulled - rightly or wrongly. The pulling of that card, the accusation of pulling that card, or the perception of that card having been pulled is the trap. It's vicious and completely divisive. It's exactly like aggression is always reinforcing.

It's like how the appearance of impropriety can be more damaging than the impropriety itself when it comes to public institutions. The appearance of IdPol angles is likely to put the focus on that aspect of the issue - hiding the issue and laying demographics at each other.

There is a reason it has been the dominant tool to shut down dissent from the Left over the last 30 years. Check your privilege on that Domestic Spying stuff, kid. Often done voluntarily and then defended vociferously as the correct path – while being blared all over the corporate media outrage machine. You can't escape it, and it's not operant. It happens before any discussion can happen.

I think it's better to keep the focus on the issue at hand - a Defense Bill a Defense Bill - so as to not to tribe up on ancillary issues. A Defense Bill with Redlining Initiative or Civilian Affirmative Action plan is not the way to go.

The New Deal was not a racist program. The New Deal left people out of the public sector, surely but so did the rest of America. Drawing attention to the racism in the program has no real connection to the viability and veracity of a repeat of the program or to the values the program espoused. Drawing attention to the racism in the New Deal is about fighting with white Leftists to split race from class, and it works, I think. Does damage to the new deal and damages the potential for solidarity.

Put up some simple ideologically cohesive ideas minus the "special interests" at the expense of the Special Interests (corporate). Let that stand on it's own. Get some wins for humans. Start assembling the tribes, building caucuses, solidarity, and intersectionality, instead of poking and stoking them and pitting ourselves against eachother.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1
interests; the poor, the elderly, the ill and infirm, those born the wrong color, those with mobility impairments or other physiological, psychological, mental or emotional difficulties, those differently gendered, "native americans", and, of course non-christians. And, of course, the young with their silly worries about survivability and everybody else unable or unready to weather the coming storm.

IOW, business as usual. Defense budgets, apt choice, are and should be defense budgets, no more and n less and, of course, our first and mostly only priority. Because Pavlov says so and we all, all of the rest of humanity (or is it just Merkans?) cannot think, cannot decry and dismiss the sophistry and cynicism of the divisive rhetoric that is certain to be spewed by the bourgeoisie. Well and good.

Maybe, we just get some market based "solutions", more predation upon the hoi polloi by the bourgeoisie and the corporations (and corporatists). I, of course, am of the hoi polloi, so I'll just hang with them and, maybe we'll find a way to just sit this one out, since we aren't invited anyway. Johnny Otis famously decided to be black, because in the US you have to be either black or white and the whites left sooooo much to be desired. Good role model for all of us, I think, or maybe, as a Californian, I could be Mexican, or Asian, or all of the above. Hell, I'm already easing my way into elderly and infirm too.

What, I wonder, would happen if the bourgeosie and corporations held another solely self-benefiting exploitation fest, painted it green, and nobody came all the same. I wonder iof that could be arranged? What if they had to do it right, inclusively, or fail? Might as well try to give it a shot, after all, we've got a lot of time left to try to force their hand. Otherwise, everybody else, all of us hoi polloi, starve and bake and drown because we cannot overcome the awesome hypnotic power of their divisive rhetoric and sophistry. Wait, do I hear a bell? I think so, gotta run.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1
interests; the poor, the elderly, the ill and infirm, those born the wrong color, those with mobility impairments or other physiological, psychological, mental or emotional difficulties, those differently gendered, "native americans", and, of course non-christians. And, of course, the young with their silly worries about survivability and everybody else unable or unready to weather the coming storm.

IOW, business as usual. Defense budgets, apt choice, are and should be defense budgets, no more and n less and, of course, our first and mostly only priority. Because Pavlov says so and we all, all of the rest of humanity (or is it just Merkans?) cannot think, cannot decry and dismiss the sophistry and cynicism of the divisive rhetoric that is certain to be spewed by the bourgeoisie. Well and good.

Maybe, we just get some market based "solutions", more predation upon the hoi polloi by the bourgeoisie and the corporations (and corporatists). I, of course, am of the hoi polloi, so I'll just hang with them and, maybe we'll find a way to just sit this one out, since we aren't invited anyway. Johnny Otis famously decided to be black, because in the US you have to be either black or white and the whites left sooooo much to be desired. Good role model for all of us, I think, or maybe, as a Californian, I could be Mexican, or Asian, or all of the above. Hell, I'm already easing my way into elderly and infirm too.

What, I wonder, would happen if the bourgeosie and corporations held another solely self-benefiting exploitation fest, painted it green, and nobody came all the same. I wonder iof that could be arranged? What if they had to do it right, inclusively, or fail? Might as well try to give it a shot, after all, we've got a lot of time left to try to force their hand. Otherwise, everybody else, all of us hoi polloi, starve and bake and drown because we cannot overcome the awesome hypnotic power of their divisive rhetoric and sophistry. Wait, do I hear a bell? I think so, gotta run.

You were just engaged in one of the most intelligent and evenly matched debates that I can remember reading here. I was totally hooked, and filled with admiration for you both.

I wanted to point out that you and enhydra lutris were debating strategy - and not tactics. So it wasn't just noise. Furthermore, your approaches are not mutually exclusive. In many cases, they are situational.

In the debate, you both imagine the policy arena to one of public interest and opinion, while off to the side the establishment manipulators work to permanently injure you by introducing divisive sub-issues, and distracting the audience with noisy spanners of identity politics, while the media churns out fake outrage and disruptive propaganda.

And, why not? That's how politics works in the US.

The strategies you are debating are both designed to do the same thing: To act as an anti-toxin against the poison pill of identity politics — as it is currently used in the narrow spectrum of fucked-up discussion that is permitted in American politics. Both strategies are preemptive.

In general, I like your idea of packaging tactical solutions that address entire systems of humanity, completely eclipsing identity shout-outs. Or side-stepping humanity, when you can. el's strategy is to roll solutions in colorful sprinkles that clearly represent identities relevant to the impact of that solution, thus neutralizing resistance tactics.

Given the speed of the incoming crisis, however, I would think that both strategies will be required, as much as you'd like to kill the subversive resistance strategy of the corporations outright, and not entertain the sabotage at all. My take, anyway....

On another note, do you think that human sentience could have evolved at all without the assistance of dogs?

dog training: Aggression is always reinforcing. It doesn't matter if you like it. Hate it. Or whatever. If it happens, it makes the likelihood of aggression more likely in the future. The End.

Same with IdPol stuff. And I'm not saying that discussions of race and inequality of humanity are Id Pol. But the further we get, policy-wise, from race and obvious racial issues, the more likely the IdPol card will be pulled - rightly or wrongly. The pulling of that card, the accusation of pulling that card, or the perception of that card having been pulled is the trap. It's vicious and completely divisive. It's exactly like aggression is always reinforcing.

It's like how the appearance of impropriety can be more damaging than the impropriety itself when it comes to public institutions. The appearance of IdPol angles is likely to put the focus on that aspect of the issue - hiding the issue and laying demographics at each other.

There is a reason it has been the dominant tool to shut down dissent from the Left over the last 30 years. Check your privilege on that Domestic Spying stuff, kid. Often done voluntarily and then defended vociferously as the correct path – while being blared all over the corporate media outrage machine. You can't escape it, and it's not operant. It happens before any discussion can happen.

I think it's better to keep the focus on the issue at hand - a Defense Bill a Defense Bill - so as to not to tribe up on ancillary issues. A Defense Bill with Redlining Initiative or Civilian Affirmative Action plan is not the way to go.

The New Deal was not a racist program. The New Deal left people out of the public sector, surely but so did the rest of America. Drawing attention to the racism in the program has no real connection to the viability and veracity of a repeat of the program or to the values the program espoused. Drawing attention to the racism in the New Deal is about fighting with white Leftists to split race from class, and it works, I think. Does damage to the new deal and damages the potential for solidarity.

Put up some simple ideologically cohesive ideas minus the "special interests" at the expense of the Special Interests (corporate). Let that stand on it's own. Get some wins for humans. Start assembling the tribes, building caucuses, solidarity, and intersectionality, instead of poking and stoking them and pitting ourselves against eachother.

@k9disc
with the hyphenated-American movements. It never stopped and it's a big reason why the D party is where it is. You can say "all-something-matters" and you can say " all these little balkanized factions matter, but mine is more important and must be addressed in every discussion". I'm not picking on any faction. Gays, unions, women, POC, coastal fisherman, whatever. We legislate by exception now, because those exceptions get tacked on to everything. They used to be called poison pills because the opposition inserted it into desired legislation to kill the bill. The D party gobbles these pills like Halloween candy, and dahling, they think they look marvelous.

It sets up an "ALL LIVES MATTER" argument over and over. I think systemic racism as a systemic behavior. Sponsored by the Big Corporate & the Oligarchs. You don't resolve a problem behavior by drawing attention to it and by basing your whole behavior mod structure around it.

That puts the PROBLEM in focus. A problem that is in focus is, well, in focus. One idea behind behavior mod is to make the PROBLEM disappear. If the PROBLEM remains disappeared long enough alternate habits are created, and the PROBLEM turns into a lesser more manageable problem. And with careful management and handling, the problem disappears entirely. When it crops up it's an aberration and odd.

These behavior mod angles and concepts have been applied to us for 100 years now, 103 to be exact. They turned America from a place where "He Kept Us Out of War" won in a landslide, and 9 months later you were a seditionist if you didn't want to Kill the Kaiser! Saddam's got WMDs. Bernie Bros.

IdPol is the latest iteration. It's like the balkanization of community. Demographic Bantustans. The people are carved up at will based upon predictable behavioral responses to triggers. "Hey, let's you and him fight..."

Basing your methodology around THE problem is a huge PROBLEM - a deal breaker for fixing a behavior.

Splitting vs Lumping is another behavior mod concept that I think is valid when it comes to politics. People are tired of being manipulated into ugly policy by lumping in something that is not germane, or easy to assume is not germane, to the policy objective. It's been the MO for at least my lifetime. It's base, and it's one of the things that is played out.

And that is not to say that we can't talk about racial issues and create policy to mitigate institutional racial disparity, but that is to say that a persistent IdPol add on to tangentially connected public policy is going to stoke institutional racism via manipulation by oligarchs.

And please don't give me a hard time about making racism a tangential issue. That is completely not the point. Institutional Racism is a prime issue in America.

When I ignore growling and pay the dog for doing the right thing I'm not making the growling a tangential issue. Growling is a prime issue. I just know that focus, particularly tangential focus on the growl, reinforces it. Better to leave growling work to discrete sessions and to avoid drawing attention to growling in general.

Corporate media, social media, and state propaganda (any difference at all?) all traffic in this kind of behavior mod. This stuff that I'm talking about IS happening. Bernie Bros. Bernie's got to make a statement on Reparations, apparently. I'd like to hear Biden's statement on Reparations before acceptance by the black community as Presidential. Heh... I'll hold my breath.

The same crude behavioral mod mechanisms are in play when it comes to groups of people. They are very simple buttons to push that are easily gamed out in terms of behavioral results.

I think it is a good idea to be a splitter and not a lumper at this time. We should be doing all we can to set up policy that is discrete and practical: Medicare for All, for instance. No need to talk about racial disparity or the historical racism of American public medicine. Do you want public health care yes or no? That coalition is vast and harder to manipulate than a means and needs based subsidy based upon demographic archetypes.

@FutureNow
Good point, but I don't think it is a "first"plan, I think it is a "simultaneously"plan.

This is the exact same tactic that HRC employed to explain why we couldn’t begin to address income inequality until we had first “solved” gender inequality, and for the exact same purpose - because Identity Politics promotes competing interests over common interests for the purpose of maintaining stasis.

The moral imperative to avoid climate-based extinction does not need to be incentivized to competing interests.

a dramatic change in order to get people's attention. Looks like it's working here.

As has been said, people are change averse. This is a BIG change. But, haven't we been having those actual conversations here? Haven't we all said in our own way that we need a complete re-boot of our system? The GND is now in actual words. Shouldn't we all be given time to think about it, consider it, debate it, discuss it, tweak it? That seems to be what's happening. It happens here on c99p. I hope it's happening out there, as vigorously.

New ideas can be scary. That's why we do debate issues quite vigorously on this site. This is a non-binding resolution. It's a start to a long process.

Continue discussing, debating. Participate in the process.

up

9 users have voted.

—

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

saving the planet from climate change isn't worth it? Hmm, well that's an opinion. Fyi, "AOC" didn't write this proposal and it's not "her" proposal. This is coming from the Justice democrats (who stole the idea from the green party and watered it down) who recruited her to be a spokesperson.

@Big Al
this answer also for zoeboear, essentially yes. I think of the story of the Arawak (sp?) people that Columbus brutalized and how they would kill their own young so that they would not grow up to be brutalized in the ways that they had experienced.

and BigAl, yes, as stated in the list of things I think we all agree with, AOC is not the original author of the concept of a GND. So it seems quite odd that people are attacking her so much when she has so successfully brought this GND concept to a national level conversation. Other GNDs may have been better but unfortunately they languished on the shelf.

saving the planet from climate change isn't worth it? Hmm, well that's an opinion. Fyi, "AOC" didn't write this proposal and it's not "her" proposal. This is coming from the Justice democrats (who stole the idea from the green party and watered it down) who recruited her to be a spokesperson.

So it seems quite odd that people are attacking her so much when she has so successfully brought this GND concept to a national level conversation.

Perhaps the characterization of AOC herself bringing the GND into the political conversation is not entirely accurate. I think it would more accurate to say that it is more her influential backers AND their influence with how much media coverage their preferred candidate gets is why we are talking about the GND at all.

I'm also highly skeptical that any political debate that brings IDPol in it is not merely in the service of the Dems raison d'etat while having the added bonus of killing the idea completely for exactly the reasons you state they should be addressed. Although I suspect the young and politically naive AOC has no idea that is what is being asked of her when she tows the Dem carcass along in yet another kabuki election year.

#10 this answer also for zoeboear, essentially yes. I think of the story of the Arawak (sp?) people that Columbus brutalized and how they would kill their own young so that they would not grow up to be brutalized in the ways that they had experienced.

and BigAl, yes, as stated in the list of things I think we all agree with, AOC is not the original author of the concept of a GND. So it seems quite odd that people are attacking her so much when she has so successfully brought this GND concept to a national level conversation. Other GNDs may have been better but unfortunately they languished on the shelf.

up

6 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

saving the planet from climate change isn't worth it? Hmm, well that's an opinion. Fyi, "AOC" didn't write this proposal and it's not "her" proposal. This is coming from the Justice democrats (who stole the idea from the green party and watered it down) who recruited her to be a spokesperson.

I'm pretty much over "get in line" as an answer to the ongoing systemic racial injustices in our system. I find it laudable that ANY plans we have look at addressing racial injustice as a part of how they intend to fix whatever the primary topic is. I'm also done with half-baked answers because it's too hard to get Americans to agree otherwise. Well, shoot! If that's the truth then let's just give up on any hard problems like global warming right now.

I'm kind of up for our leaders actually leading in the right directions without a raft of excuses for why the right direction is too hard.

up

8 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

all hands. A lot of what got us here was based on and done via environmental racism. There are no dirty coal plants in rich white communities, ya know. Reversing that is a natural part of attacking the climate crises by attacking its causes and sources. But, to further motivate and facilitate full participation by all, you need to provide incentives and wherewithal for all, this won't work on a "here, lacky, build/rebuild this infrastructure for us", you have to motivate and enable full participation by spreading the spoils, as it were. Successful pirates shared the booty for a reason.

up

6 users have voted.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

is that existing social arrangements are going to hurt a lot of people as climate change intensifies. Especially that real estate Ponzi scheme with the huge populations of homeless people moving to California because at least they CAN live outdoors in CA.

Last year in Claremont, California, a comfortable, self-congratulating suburb of Los Angeles, the temperature reached 117 degrees. What happens when that becomes a norm for California in general?

So yeah there's reasons why they mix in other issues with the climate change one.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"The sustainable and just civilization that we hope to create... cannot be built using a capitalist economy" - Kim Stanley Robinson

This paragraph splinters off a fictional story used as an introduction to basically the point highlighted here. The fictional story is the fiction referenced in this paragrah.

I bring this fiction up because in reality there is a longstanding and persistent paternalism in the way that majority white activist organizations engage with people who have been marginalized, dehumanized and abused in our culture. One need only do a few Internet or Twitter searches to find copious stories from activists who identify as black about having their priorities pushed aside and dismissed in such groups as The Green Party or Democratic Socialists of America. In all too many cases, white-led groups—either consciously or unconsciously—want black-identified activists to subordinate their experiences and ideas to better conform with strategies dictated by white leaders.https://ghionjournal.com/struggle-against-state-violence/

AOC is all about leftist tropes. The left is all about leftist tropes. I'm pretty sick of Democrats, Republicans, leftist, right wingers, feminists, and every other veal pen community out there. No, I don't just want us all to get along. I want us to put the majority before the minority. I want us to put facts and science before emotions. I want a freaking civilized society where people don't shoot up people. Where corporations don't get paid to destroy the planet. Where healing people who can't afford to pay is OK. Where locking people up doesn't fund stock holders or fund jobs. I would like a moral, benevolent, and just society, where everything else is just bull shit. This includes me too, blm, incels (whatever the hell they are) and all the rest who think their ONE issue is more important than anything else. "I matter. I was born to run - for me, not you. I am noble because I care about MY cause, not yours."

to save humanity because misogyny and cretins like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump still exist. I simply don't understand the logic of that argument.

This paragraph splinters off a fictional story used as an introduction to basically the point highlighted here. The fictional story is the fiction referenced in this paragrah.

I bring this fiction up because in reality there is a longstanding and persistent paternalism in the way that majority white activist organizations engage with people who have been marginalized, dehumanized and abused in our culture. One need only do a few Internet or Twitter searches to find copious stories from activists who identify as black about having their priorities pushed aside and dismissed in such groups as The Green Party or Democratic Socialists of America. In all too many cases, white-led groups—either consciously or unconsciously—want black-identified activists to subordinate their experiences and ideas to better conform with strategies dictated by white leaders.https://ghionjournal.com/struggle-against-state-violence/

AOC is all about leftist tropes. The left is all about leftist tropes. I'm pretty sick of Democrats, Republicans, leftist, right wingers, feminists, and every other veal pen community out there. No, I don't just want us all to get along. I want us to put the majority before the minority. I want us to put facts and science before emotions. I want a freaking civilized society where people don't shoot up people. Where corporations don't get paid to destroy the planet. Where healing people who can't afford to pay is OK. Where locking people up doesn't fund stock holders or fund jobs. I would like a moral, benevolent, and just society, where everything else is just bull shit. This includes me too, blm, incels (whatever the hell they are) and all the rest who think their ONE issue is more important than anything else. "I matter. I was born to run - for me, not you. I am noble because I care about MY cause, not yours."

Who gives a fuck about humanity?

up

4 users have voted.

—

If we surrendered to earth's intelligence we could rise up rooted, like trees
~ Rainer Maria Rilke

It was unclear if that was sarcasm or invective. Because of that, people could call you out for "white POS", especially here on c99p where decorum is highly prized.

Just a word. You might want to go back and edit that comment.

This paragraph splinters off a fictional story used as an introduction to basically the point highlighted here. The fictional story is the fiction referenced in this paragrah.

I bring this fiction up because in reality there is a longstanding and persistent paternalism in the way that majority white activist organizations engage with people who have been marginalized, dehumanized and abused in our culture. One need only do a few Internet or Twitter searches to find copious stories from activists who identify as black about having their priorities pushed aside and dismissed in such groups as The Green Party or Democratic Socialists of America. In all too many cases, white-led groups—either consciously or unconsciously—want black-identified activists to subordinate their experiences and ideas to better conform with strategies dictated by white leaders.https://ghionjournal.com/struggle-against-state-violence/

AOC is all about leftist tropes. The left is all about leftist tropes. I'm pretty sick of Democrats, Republicans, leftist, right wingers, feminists, and every other veal pen community out there. No, I don't just want us all to get along. I want us to put the majority before the minority. I want us to put facts and science before emotions. I want a freaking civilized society where people don't shoot up people. Where corporations don't get paid to destroy the planet. Where healing people who can't afford to pay is OK. Where locking people up doesn't fund stock holders or fund jobs. I would like a moral, benevolent, and just society, where everything else is just bull shit. This includes me too, blm, incels (whatever the hell they are) and all the rest who think their ONE issue is more important than anything else. "I matter. I was born to run - for me, not you. I am noble because I care about MY cause, not yours."

calling me out. It was truth, nothing more and nothing less. BLM would sooner cut off a someone's head than acknowledge criminal justice reform is a systemic problem in the US that impacts us all, and most specifically AA, Native Americans, and the mentally ill. It has to be about AAs and only AAs because anything else is condescending, white privilege, elitism, and racists. I don't even want to think about all the poor people, regardless of color, in prisons they don't belong in. Me too wants all women to lynch all white males including our husbands, sons and grandsons, based solely on what some woman alleges, no due process required. A starving child in Appalachia is guilty of elitism based solely on the color of their skin.

The leftists moralizing and passing judgement on who and what is free speech or entitled to free speech are the same ones beating the drums of war and swooning over neoliberals who will deny every human on the planet a shot at equality if it pays them enough. It is the N word, the C word, but feel free to tell anyone to FO. Name call and tell people how racist and sexist they are, just don't use words that they think are politically taboo. If "they" think it and say it is so, then STFU and do it or prepare for doxxing, poutage, outrage, and being harassed and verbally assaulted - which they and only they are entitled to do.

No, I'm too old for all of this game playing with identity politics. Divide and conquer is the game, and it has been around forever. I'm tired of it. This is how you turn people turn into Trump voters, get them to shoot up mosques, and join terrorist organizations. Whatever happened to minding your GD business? Live and let live? Treating others as you would like to be treated? I wouldn't mind one of those islands for my very own.

Edit to Arnedt: I don't think I did a good job of comprehending what you wrote the first time I read it. "White pos" was meant to be air quotes for what SJWs have no problem calling white people who don't agree with them. It isn't racist when they do it. Racism, sexism, etc. is whatever they say it is.

I don't even care that swjs think that. Land of the free and all that. What I care about is them shutting down the speech of others they don't agree with through the use of rampaging social media. Because someone said something today or when they were 12 that the sjws don't like gives sjws no right to go on a rampage against them and anyone else who gets in their way. If Maher wants to make a fool, racist, or anything else of himself on his own show, it isn't up to SJWs to say he can't. They can shut him off in their home, but they can't shut him off in my home, not that I watch the man anyway. Haven't for four years.

“What is more, the whole apparatus of life has become so complex and the processes of production, distribution, and consumption have become so specialized and subdivided, that the individual person loses confidence in his own unaided capacities: he is increasingly subject to commands he does not understand, at the mercy of forces over which he exercises no effective control, moving to a destination he has not chosen."

Or in other words, imo, the whole of mankind suffers from fascist, oligarchic, corporate tyranny and it's imperative that we address inequality globally in all it's manifestations including racial inequality and justice.

What justice can anyone expect in a system that usurps democracy in which we surely live.

AOC is bringing the conversation; inside the front page, now, needing the front page, again my opinion. So, i say hurrah to her.

“What is more, the whole apparatus of life has become so complex and the processes of production, distribution, and consumption have become so specialized and subdivided, that the individual person loses confidence in his own unaided capacities: he is increasingly subject to commands he does not understand, at the mercy of forces over which he exercises no effective control, moving to a destination he has not chosen."

Or in other words, imo, the whole of mankind suffers from fascist, oligarchic, corporate tyranny and it's imperative that we address inequality globally in all it's manifestations including racial inequality and justice.

What justice can anyone expect in a system that usurps democracy in which we surely live.

AOC is bringing the conversation; inside the front page, now, needing the front page, again my opinion. So, i say hurrah to her.

I apologize in advance for any discomfort I might cause you. Its not really personal. I recognize that my style of lengthy argumentation comes across as aggressive and smothering, but it is my style. The internet hurts me there because there is lack of body language and of the possibility of interruption. I hope you understand that I am trying to convince you, not insult or demean you as a person. Your arguments, however, I do mean to demean.

----

This hypothetical is easily refuted.

You cited all the groups that IdPol thinks are oppressed and said it was justifiable for them to hold the planet ransom. And, no offense, but your one-line speeches sounded like the treacle that Stephen Spielberg produces. Also, note that no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group. If you want to go back in time, lets go back to when the Irish were treated like dogs. Or when the Chinese were practically deported. The victimhood goes on and on, and that is the original sin of IdPol. Its always divisive, its always about exclusivity and demanding complete veto power over every aspect of life.

Well, there are many other groups that think themselves oppressed, and they will be more than happy to jump on the blackmail bandwagon. Let me beat that idea to death.

- Neonazis will demand the ban on Nazi speech, paraphenalia, and recruiting be lifted and the police stop infiltrating their White Supremacist organizations.

- Libertarians will demand that the taxes be abolished, and that the whole program be run on a for-profit basis, or they won't cooperate.

- The boutique transgender movement will demand Constitutional protection for five year olds.

- Christian fundamentalists will demand the US institute Biblical law.

- Wahhabi fundamentalist Moslems (and there are a few in the US) will demand Sharia Law.

IOW, in the scenario you postulate, where minorities truly have total veto power, the whole thing would devolve into a tribalistic dogfight to see who gets more political power, instead of the desperately needed cooperative effort. Of course any massive undertaking will have its form of cronyism and corruption, but to bake it in before the effort starts with political demands is to guarantee that it will be a zero-sum game instead of a positive-sum game.

In short, if one minority group is making non-negotiable demands in your scenario, all the ones I've listed (and more) would come out of the woodwork in my counter-scenario. If you deny these other groups a voice, you invalidate your argument. If you allow those voices, the whole scenario crashes into gridlock.

----

Second point. Non-environmental demands have started before the technical proposal is on the table.

Everyone, even its proponents, agree that AOC's GND "proposal" has zero technical details, that it fails to address resource limitations. The heavy lifting of a GND is making a balance between technical (electric cars, windmills, and PVs - all of which can't be scaled indefinitely due to resource constraints) and social (drive less, fly less, abandon the suburbs, eat less beef and less junk food and more locally grown food).

Did you notice how the social items will disproportionately not impact POCs? That's because the environmental problems are caused by people with enough money to have an environmental impact. Most poor people (POC and white) live hand-to-mouth and consume minimmal resources. They can't scrape together $500 for an emergency. They already drive less or use public transport (which has to be upgraded dramatically in any GND). They rarely fly on airplanes. They mostly live in poor urban areas, so they don't care about the suburbs. They would be happy if the food industry were mandated to stop selling corn syrup laden junk and chemical soaked beef burgers and instead sell nutricious food at a subsidized price.

In my earlier OP, I pointed out that GND jobs will automatically flow to the disadvantaged areas because that's where the polluting power plants and oil refineries have been located. Any intelligent GND will disproportionately give jobs to poor neighborhoods. Also, any national rollout of house insulation or other energy saving techology will follow the same pattern.

Again, in short, a good GND will already treat POC less harshly than richer folks. The economics of a GND naturally favor POC. POC could make couch their demands in terms of sound economics, but that's not good enough for the IdPol crowd. Its not divisive enough.

----
Third point: AOC's GND is totally political.

The GND has been proposed many times in the last 10-20 years. The Green Party has proposed it many times. It is the fact that the corporate media broadcast her every word (which I have repeatedly stated is one piece of evidence that she is a corporate creature) that has allowed the IdPol version of GND to be the one under debate. TPTB want this divisive proposal to be the center of attention. The fact that AOCs proposal does not address the technical details is just more evidence that this is a political move that uses environmentalism as cover.

It is sad to see that IdPol is not recognized for the divisive political control tool that it is. The claim that only group X members can speak on issues that involve group X is a recipe for resentment and anarchy. My wife knows an author of adolescent books who was told that she shouldn't write them any more because she isn't an adolescent. Yeah, that's stupid. But this kind of stupidity keeps coming up because once you start down the IdPol path its tribalism all the way.

Fourth point. My essay that you referenced was in reaction to the comment by AOC that FDR's New Deal was "extremely racist".

Nowhere have you addressed the fact that POC AOC is already trashing great historical figures for not saving POC instantly when they were living in a de jure apartheid society in the middle of the Great Depression and WW2.

Or maybe ACC came upon us mid 20th century. Maybe in the middle of WWII the fighting came to a halt and a great presentation was made about saving the world for generations to come. And a hand shot up from the side,

Based on her New Deal comment, if she came back in the middle of WW2, she would have demanded to end racism as a precondition to fighting Hilter and the war effort would have suffered, and the Nazis might have won.

BTW - I never do hypotheticals because they leave one open to even sillier counter-hypotheticals. Might of this, and might of that. Very slippery slope.

I don't imagine him to be one of your fave authors, but have you ever read Solzhenitsyn's Lenin in Zurich?

Reading it really made me question the validity of many lefties' demands (including my own) for instant, thoroughly effective, and absolute "politically correct" political and economic solutions (ecology wasn't much of a thing back then, I guess).

And isn't the political always personal? How can it be otherwise unless you're a totally dispassionate human being or something worse?

And don't most people find it mighty difficult to separate their argument, their felt reason for existence, from their very being?

I try to start from the premise that we're all a bunch of fuck-ups, variously wounded and broken and hurting. I usually screw up even as I try to be nice. More often than I'll probably ever be able to admit. I guess I'll never recover from the abuse I've suffered in my life -- and abuse I've no doubt inflicted on others, rarely knowingly, and undoubtedly more unknowingly.

Does this sound like I'm pulling a j'accuse on ya? You betcha! I'm accusing you of being human!

Hang in there.

I apologize in advance for any discomfort I might cause you. Its not really personal. I recognize that my style of lengthy argumentation comes across as aggressive and smothering, but it is my style. The internet hurts me there because there is lack of body language and of the possibility of interruption. I hope you understand that I am trying to convince you, not insult or demean you as a person. Your arguments, however, I do mean to demean.

----

This hypothetical is easily refuted.

You cited all the groups that IdPol thinks are oppressed and said it was justifiable for them to hold the planet ransom. And, no offense, but your one-line speeches sounded like the treacle that Stephen Spielberg produces. Also, note that no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group. If you want to go back in time, lets go back to when the Irish were treated like dogs. Or when the Chinese were practically deported. The victimhood goes on and on, and that is the original sin of IdPol. Its always divisive, its always about exclusivity and demanding complete veto power over every aspect of life.

Well, there are many other groups that think themselves oppressed, and they will be more than happy to jump on the blackmail bandwagon. Let me beat that idea to death.

- Neonazis will demand the ban on Nazi speech, paraphenalia, and recruiting be lifted and the police stop infiltrating their White Supremacist organizations.

- Libertarians will demand that the taxes be abolished, and that the whole program be run on a for-profit basis, or they won't cooperate.

- The boutique transgender movement will demand Constitutional protection for five year olds.

- Christian fundamentalists will demand the US institute Biblical law.

- Wahhabi fundamentalist Moslems (and there are a few in the US) will demand Sharia Law.

IOW, in the scenario you postulate, where minorities truly have total veto power, the whole thing would devolve into a tribalistic dogfight to see who gets more political power, instead of the desperately needed cooperative effort. Of course any massive undertaking will have its form of cronyism and corruption, but to bake it in before the effort starts with political demands is to guarantee that it will be a zero-sum game instead of a positive-sum game.

In short, if one minority group is making non-negotiable demands in your scenario, all the ones I've listed (and more) would come out of the woodwork in my counter-scenario. If you deny these other groups a voice, you invalidate your argument. If you allow those voices, the whole scenario crashes into gridlock.

----

Second point. Non-environmental demands have started before the technical proposal is on the table.

Everyone, even its proponents, agree that AOC's GND "proposal" has zero technical details, that it fails to address resource limitations. The heavy lifting of a GND is making a balance between technical (electric cars, windmills, and PVs - all of which can't be scaled indefinitely due to resource constraints) and social (drive less, fly less, abandon the suburbs, eat less beef and less junk food and more locally grown food).

Did you notice how the social items will disproportionately not impact POCs? That's because the environmental problems are caused by people with enough money to have an environmental impact. Most poor people (POC and white) live hand-to-mouth and consume minimmal resources. They can't scrape together $500 for an emergency. They already drive less or use public transport (which has to be upgraded dramatically in any GND). They rarely fly on airplanes. They mostly live in poor urban areas, so they don't care about the suburbs. They would be happy if the food industry were mandated to stop selling corn syrup laden junk and chemical soaked beef burgers and instead sell nutricious food at a subsidized price.

In my earlier OP, I pointed out that GND jobs will automatically flow to the disadvantaged areas because that's where the polluting power plants and oil refineries have been located. Any intelligent GND will disproportionately give jobs to poor neighborhoods. Also, any national rollout of house insulation or other energy saving techology will follow the same pattern.

Again, in short, a good GND will already treat POC less harshly than richer folks. The economics of a GND naturally favor POC. POC could make couch their demands in terms of sound economics, but that's not good enough for the IdPol crowd. Its not divisive enough.

----
Third point: AOC's GND is totally political.

The GND has been proposed many times in the last 10-20 years. The Green Party has proposed it many times. It is the fact that the corporate media broadcast her every word (which I have repeatedly stated is one piece of evidence that she is a corporate creature) that has allowed the IdPol version of GND to be the one under debate. TPTB want this divisive proposal to be the center of attention. The fact that AOCs proposal does not address the technical details is just more evidence that this is a political move that uses environmentalism as cover.

It is sad to see that IdPol is not recognized for the divisive political control tool that it is. The claim that only group X members can speak on issues that involve group X is a recipe for resentment and anarchy. My wife knows an author of adolescent books who was told that she shouldn't write them any more because she isn't an adolescent. Yeah, that's stupid. But this kind of stupidity keeps coming up because once you start down the IdPol path its tribalism all the way.

Fourth point. My essay that you referenced was in reaction to the comment by AOC that FDR's New Deal was "extremely racist".

Nowhere have you addressed the fact that POC AOC is already trashing great historical figures for not saving POC instantly when they were living in a de jure apartheid society in the middle of the Great Depression and WW2.

Or maybe ACC came upon us mid 20th century. Maybe in the middle of WWII the fighting came to a halt and a great presentation was made about saving the world for generations to come. And a hand shot up from the side,

Based on her New Deal comment, if she came back in the middle of WW2, she would have demanded to end racism as a precondition to fighting Hilter and the war effort would have suffered, and the Nazis might have won.

BTW - I never do hypotheticals because they leave one open to even sillier counter-hypotheticals. Might of this, and might of that. Very slippery slope.

I don't imagine him to be one of your fave authors, but have you ever read Solzhenitsyn's Lenin in Zurich?

Reading it really made me question the validity of many lefties' demands (including my own) for instant, thoroughly effective, and absolute "politically correct" political and economic solutions (ecology wasn't much of a thing back then, I guess).

And isn't the political always personal? How can it be otherwise unless you're a totally dispassionate human being or something worse?

And don't most people find it mighty difficult to separate their argument, their felt reason for existence, from their very being?

I try to start from the premise that we're all a bunch of fuck-ups, variously wounded and broken and hurting. I usually screw up even as I try to be nice. More often than I'll probably ever be able to admit. I guess I'll never recover from the abuse I've suffered in my life -- and abuse I've no doubt inflicted on others, rarely knowingly, and undoubtedly more unknowingly.

Does this sound like I'm pulling a j'accuse on ya? You betcha! I'm accusing you of being human!

@arendt
And no worries about you needing to demean my thoughts. I intend to not only not demean YOU or views, but to rather replace them with better narratives. Better narratives that are more useful in working towards a livable climate and ending racial disparities.
A few thoughts:
It is not minority groups (in the sense of IDPol) that our holding our climate hostage. It is 1%ers and their enablers. It is greedy capitalists and corporations that have unchecked power. It isn't the homeless person holding our climate hostage. It isn't Micheal Brown or Ira Hayes holding our climate hostage. As Jimmy D would say, it isn't the powerless that are the problem.

Not all IDPol is bad. Genuine attempts at ending discrimination and injustice can and do happen. I think it is bad when it becomes a screen to hide true intentions or derail progress. The devil is in the details. IDPol can bring us together or it can divide us. It is up to us to decide how we react. In this instance you are using it to attack the person who has most effectively put GND in the national spotlight. In this instance it is your use of IDPol that suggests you don't care about racial disparities. Some IDPol is to create tribalism, some IS TO PREVENT IT. Ending racial disparities is an attempt to end it.

A serious question- do you hate the civil rights movement for being IDPol? The civil war? Is there any way that we can address race issues that you don't consider IDPol?

I don't buy your conspiratorial view that AOC has only brought GND to the national spotlight because she is as you say "a corporate tool" or that she is being handled by dark devious forces. I would rather that Jill Stein could have brought this to national attention. I like and trust Jill more than AOC. But you have to hand it to AOC. She has a way with words. She has had some great twitter moments and verbal jousting that has made her magnetic to the press and given her a great following. Jill and others have surely paved the way for her, but she has put this in the forefront. Jill and Ajamu had my vote and support last election. I wish it was her at the helm of this latest push for a GND. But I am not going to let jealousy that someone else has picked up the baton and ran with it quash my support for it.

Of course the GND is political. And AOC is political. She is an elected representative after all. Trying to promote an agenda that includes legislation.

I think you made a critique ( can't find it now- another post?) of the GND working with corporate interests. That is a critique that I totally agree with. For a GND to be truly worthy of support (IMHO) it will have to curtail all advantages that go to investors, it will have end racial disparities and it will have to have a fighting chance (obviously) as saving the livability of our planet. While the technical details are not in her version yet I don't think you can assume (under her version or anyone else) some of the assumptions that you make in your point 2. That jobs and opportunities will automatically flow to poor and disadvantaged folks in a "good GND". That actually needs to be put in writing to happen and I think that is what AOC is up to with her insistence on ending racial disparities SIMULTANEOUSLY with saving our planet.

I am not going to bother to go deep regarding point four with you. I have never been able to point out racism to someone who does not want to see it. You may want to quibble over wether the New Deal was "extremely racist" or just mildly so. You may want to put into historical context to explain it away. I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is.

In your opening statement you suggested that "no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group". One of my friends, a dear sweet 80+ year old Jewish lady would beg to differ. As a woman and as a Jew she tells me stories of how she was cut out of opportunities throughout her life. In her family business because of her femaleness. Outside of her family business because of her Jewishness. She did well enough all the same. But like the POC that missed out on most of the benefits of the New Deal, she missed out a lifetime of opportunities. Now wealth that she could not create will not get passed to children that she could create. A member of the "greatest generation" that was sidelined from so much opportunity.

Oh, and regarding your hypotheticals in part one, thanks for beating them to death.

I apologize in advance for any discomfort I might cause you. Its not really personal. I recognize that my style of lengthy argumentation comes across as aggressive and smothering, but it is my style. The internet hurts me there because there is lack of body language and of the possibility of interruption. I hope you understand that I am trying to convince you, not insult or demean you as a person. Your arguments, however, I do mean to demean.

----

This hypothetical is easily refuted.

You cited all the groups that IdPol thinks are oppressed and said it was justifiable for them to hold the planet ransom. And, no offense, but your one-line speeches sounded like the treacle that Stephen Spielberg produces. Also, note that no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group. If you want to go back in time, lets go back to when the Irish were treated like dogs. Or when the Chinese were practically deported. The victimhood goes on and on, and that is the original sin of IdPol. Its always divisive, its always about exclusivity and demanding complete veto power over every aspect of life.

Well, there are many other groups that think themselves oppressed, and they will be more than happy to jump on the blackmail bandwagon. Let me beat that idea to death.

- Neonazis will demand the ban on Nazi speech, paraphenalia, and recruiting be lifted and the police stop infiltrating their White Supremacist organizations.

- Libertarians will demand that the taxes be abolished, and that the whole program be run on a for-profit basis, or they won't cooperate.

- The boutique transgender movement will demand Constitutional protection for five year olds.

- Christian fundamentalists will demand the US institute Biblical law.

- Wahhabi fundamentalist Moslems (and there are a few in the US) will demand Sharia Law.

IOW, in the scenario you postulate, where minorities truly have total veto power, the whole thing would devolve into a tribalistic dogfight to see who gets more political power, instead of the desperately needed cooperative effort. Of course any massive undertaking will have its form of cronyism and corruption, but to bake it in before the effort starts with political demands is to guarantee that it will be a zero-sum game instead of a positive-sum game.

In short, if one minority group is making non-negotiable demands in your scenario, all the ones I've listed (and more) would come out of the woodwork in my counter-scenario. If you deny these other groups a voice, you invalidate your argument. If you allow those voices, the whole scenario crashes into gridlock.

----

Second point. Non-environmental demands have started before the technical proposal is on the table.

Everyone, even its proponents, agree that AOC's GND "proposal" has zero technical details, that it fails to address resource limitations. The heavy lifting of a GND is making a balance between technical (electric cars, windmills, and PVs - all of which can't be scaled indefinitely due to resource constraints) and social (drive less, fly less, abandon the suburbs, eat less beef and less junk food and more locally grown food).

Did you notice how the social items will disproportionately not impact POCs? That's because the environmental problems are caused by people with enough money to have an environmental impact. Most poor people (POC and white) live hand-to-mouth and consume minimmal resources. They can't scrape together $500 for an emergency. They already drive less or use public transport (which has to be upgraded dramatically in any GND). They rarely fly on airplanes. They mostly live in poor urban areas, so they don't care about the suburbs. They would be happy if the food industry were mandated to stop selling corn syrup laden junk and chemical soaked beef burgers and instead sell nutricious food at a subsidized price.

In my earlier OP, I pointed out that GND jobs will automatically flow to the disadvantaged areas because that's where the polluting power plants and oil refineries have been located. Any intelligent GND will disproportionately give jobs to poor neighborhoods. Also, any national rollout of house insulation or other energy saving techology will follow the same pattern.

Again, in short, a good GND will already treat POC less harshly than richer folks. The economics of a GND naturally favor POC. POC could make couch their demands in terms of sound economics, but that's not good enough for the IdPol crowd. Its not divisive enough.

----
Third point: AOC's GND is totally political.

The GND has been proposed many times in the last 10-20 years. The Green Party has proposed it many times. It is the fact that the corporate media broadcast her every word (which I have repeatedly stated is one piece of evidence that she is a corporate creature) that has allowed the IdPol version of GND to be the one under debate. TPTB want this divisive proposal to be the center of attention. The fact that AOCs proposal does not address the technical details is just more evidence that this is a political move that uses environmentalism as cover.

It is sad to see that IdPol is not recognized for the divisive political control tool that it is. The claim that only group X members can speak on issues that involve group X is a recipe for resentment and anarchy. My wife knows an author of adolescent books who was told that she shouldn't write them any more because she isn't an adolescent. Yeah, that's stupid. But this kind of stupidity keeps coming up because once you start down the IdPol path its tribalism all the way.

Fourth point. My essay that you referenced was in reaction to the comment by AOC that FDR's New Deal was "extremely racist".

Nowhere have you addressed the fact that POC AOC is already trashing great historical figures for not saving POC instantly when they were living in a de jure apartheid society in the middle of the Great Depression and WW2.

Or maybe ACC came upon us mid 20th century. Maybe in the middle of WWII the fighting came to a halt and a great presentation was made about saving the world for generations to come. And a hand shot up from the side,

Based on her New Deal comment, if she came back in the middle of WW2, she would have demanded to end racism as a precondition to fighting Hilter and the war effort would have suffered, and the Nazis might have won.

BTW - I never do hypotheticals because they leave one open to even sillier counter-hypotheticals. Might of this, and might of that. Very slippery slope.

Some IDPol is to create tribalism, some IS TO PREVENT IT. Ending racial disparities is an attempt to end it.

A serious question- do you hate the civil rights movement for being IDPol? The civil war? Is there any way that we can address race issues that you don't consider IDPol?

You are just so wrong on the history here. The original Civil Rights movement demanded equal justice under law. They wanted color blindness. But, then Richard Nixon stepped in with his Philadelphia Plan. It was a quota plan. This plan was objected to by the mainline Civil Rights leaders as being contrary to their goals.

This plan came under fire during its initial implementation. In November 1968, Elmer Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, ruled it illegal under existing procurement law. On its way out of office, the Johnson administration did not fight this ruling. The incoming Nixon administration, however, saw the program as a political wedge issue which could divide two reliably Democratic constituencies: African Americans and organized labor. The new Assistant Secretary of Labor, Arthur Fletcher, issued a revised version of the Plan. When Staats again declared it illegal, this time stating that the hiring goals too closely resembled quotas, illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,President Nixon fought successfully for the Plan in Congress. After Nixon’s threat to keep both chambers in session over the Christmas break of 1969, Congress approved the Plan. It would also survive a later court challenge by a Philadelphia contractor.

With skilled white construction workers rioting in favor of the president’s war agenda in May 1970, Nixon pivoted, abandoning the Philadelphia Plan. He appointed Peter Brennan, the leader of the New York Building Trades, as Secretary of Labor, and shunted Fletcher aside. Brennan advocated city-based programs encouraging a return to voluntary integration.

If there is IdPol in the Civil Rights movement its because Nixon put it there, for deeply political reasons of "ratfucking". Predictably, a lot of cronies and tokenizers latched onto the concept and muscled out the more principled CR leaders by dangling offers of jobs.

The original plan and its modification were illegal under the very Civil Rights act that you would probably defend. Or maybe you would decide that the CRA was also racist, because it was not full-blown IdPol.

Quotas encourage tokenism and tribalism. That was Nixon's intent, and he succeeded. By latching onto affirmative action, the Civil Rights movement played into Nixon's hands, the same way George Bush played into Obama's Osama Bin Laden's hands - in both cases, instituting policies that undercut the culture being defended.

I really am tired of being lectured about my racism. I am tired of bogus history being thrown in my face.

I don't buy your conspiratorial view that AOC has only brought GND to the national spotlight because she is as you say "a corporate tool" or that she is being handled by dark devious forces. I would rather that Jill Stein could have brought this to national attention. I like and trust Jill more than AOC. But you have to hand it to AOC. She has a way with words. She has had some great twitter moments and verbal jousting that has made her magnetic to the press and given her a great following. Jill and others have surely paved the way for her, but she has put this in the forefront.

Your attribution of agency is all wrong. Jill Stein was literally banned from TV for going to Russia and having dinner with Putin. Jill Stein had zero chance of doing anything because she has been blacklisted (no pun intended). AOC has gotten way more than her fair share of publicity (and Joe Crowley, formerly number four Democrat in the House, has utterly vanished.

The agency does not belong to AOC. The agency belongs to the corporate media who decide who gets covered and what kind of coverage they get. They have a blacklist and a smear-only list. Bernie was on the blacklist at the beginning, graduated to the smear-only list with BLM (who, you may have noticed stopped being covered the minute Bernie "lost"). Today, Tulsi is on the smear-only list. Ilhan Omar is on the "noun, verb, anti-Semitism" "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest" list.

But AOC, marvelous, perky AOC gets all the airtime she wants, even as the rightwing gets more and more worked up about "socialism".

If you don't see a pattern there, I can't help you.

As for her perky tweets, Big Al has chronicled how she was selected by Justice Democrats to be their spokesmodel, how her staff (big JD people) literally wrote her IdPol GND, and probably that setpiece "Let's play a game" speech. Yeah, she's great when she stays on script; and when she wanders off it, her fans can blow it off as inexperience. Heads she wins, tails her opponents lose.

I am not going to bother to go deep regarding point four with you. I have never been able to point out racism to someone who does not want to see it. You may want to quibble over wether the New Deal was "extremely racist" or just mildly so. You may want to put into historical context to explain it away. I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is.

I do not understand what you are criticizing here. I have already agreed to everything you wrote, except that I disagree that putting it in historical context is "explaining it away". Furthermore, you refuse to recognize that an attack on the New Deal today is de facto an attack on all progressives, both in the present and in the past. The New Deal has been attacked by the right since the day it was proposed. Why on earth do we need to give the GOP ammunition to dismantle what little is left of the New Deal, i.e. Social Security? This kind of ultra purity is exactly why I reject IdPol.

My ancestors were Irish. They emigrated here after the Potato famine. I personally do not demand that everyone in the world recognize that the British are racists shits who let people starve to death in huge numbers 150 years ago. Yeah its a fact, but its in the past. It belongs to another time, and it should be judged by the standards of that time. Otherwise, its open season for revisionist demagogues.

Some people forgive and move on, especially when the perpetrators are long dead. People who keep chewing over old wounds create the kind of tribalism one finds in the Balkans. Which is exactly what I think IdPol is deliberately doing.

In your opening statement you suggested that "no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group". One of my friends, a dear sweet 80+ year old Jewish lady would beg to differ. As a woman and as a Jew she tells me stories of how she was cut out of opportunities throughout her life.

First, its an anecdote. Its one person. And your sample size of one has a "confound", she is a woman, another whole category of prejudice. My wife tells me that as late as 1985 she was still fighting low pay and being passed over for promotion.

Second, the woman is barely ten years older than me. By the time I was 30, there were absolutely no bars to Jewish people (I had a Jewish woman for a professor in 1971.) that weren't also bars to non-elite whites (i.e., working class kids who were momentarily useful to the MIC). My grad school classes were full of Jewish students and Jewish teachers. We had visiting professors from Israel, and they were lionized. Those are my anecdotes. See why anecdotes are not evidence?

But like the POC that missed out on most of the benefits of the New Deal, she missed out a lifetime of opportunities. Now wealth that she could not create will not get passed to children that she could create. A member of the "greatest generation" that was sidelined from so much opportunity.

Again, this kind of victimhood sets my teeth on edge. Everyone feels their lives could have been better. (I could tell you a personal story about an event that occurred when I was 10 that changed my life in a negative way, but I don't do whining.) Everyone could point to some injustice and get stuck there for the rest of their lives. IdPoll actively encourages people to that counterproductive behavior.

#16 And no worries about you needing to demean my thoughts. I intend to not only not demean YOU or views, but to rather replace them with better narratives. Better narratives that are more useful in working towards a livable climate and ending racial disparities.
A few thoughts:
It is not minority groups (in the sense of IDPol) that our holding our climate hostage. It is 1%ers and their enablers. It is greedy capitalists and corporations that have unchecked power. It isn't the homeless person holding our climate hostage. It isn't Micheal Brown or Ira Hayes holding our climate hostage. As Jimmy D would say, it isn't the powerless that are the problem.

Not all IDPol is bad. Genuine attempts at ending discrimination and injustice can and do happen. I think it is bad when it becomes a screen to hide true intentions or derail progress. The devil is in the details. IDPol can bring us together or it can divide us. It is up to us to decide how we react. In this instance you are using it to attack the person who has most effectively put GND in the national spotlight. In this instance it is your use of IDPol that suggests you don't care about racial disparities. Some IDPol is to create tribalism, some IS TO PREVENT IT. Ending racial disparities is an attempt to end it.

A serious question- do you hate the civil rights movement for being IDPol? The civil war? Is there any way that we can address race issues that you don't consider IDPol?

I don't buy your conspiratorial view that AOC has only brought GND to the national spotlight because she is as you say "a corporate tool" or that she is being handled by dark devious forces. I would rather that Jill Stein could have brought this to national attention. I like and trust Jill more than AOC. But you have to hand it to AOC. She has a way with words. She has had some great twitter moments and verbal jousting that has made her magnetic to the press and given her a great following. Jill and others have surely paved the way for her, but she has put this in the forefront. Jill and Ajamu had my vote and support last election. I wish it was her at the helm of this latest push for a GND. But I am not going to let jealousy that someone else has picked up the baton and ran with it quash my support for it.

Of course the GND is political. And AOC is political. She is an elected representative after all. Trying to promote an agenda that includes legislation.

I think you made a critique ( can't find it now- another post?) of the GND working with corporate interests. That is a critique that I totally agree with. For a GND to be truly worthy of support (IMHO) it will have to curtail all advantages that go to investors, it will have end racial disparities and it will have to have a fighting chance (obviously) as saving the livability of our planet. While the technical details are not in her version yet I don't think you can assume (under her version or anyone else) some of the assumptions that you make in your point 2. That jobs and opportunities will automatically flow to poor and disadvantaged folks in a "good GND". That actually needs to be put in writing to happen and I think that is what AOC is up to with her insistence on ending racial disparities SIMULTANEOUSLY with saving our planet.

I am not going to bother to go deep regarding point four with you. I have never been able to point out racism to someone who does not want to see it. You may want to quibble over wether the New Deal was "extremely racist" or just mildly so. You may want to put into historical context to explain it away. I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is.

In your opening statement you suggested that "no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group". One of my friends, a dear sweet 80+ year old Jewish lady would beg to differ. As a woman and as a Jew she tells me stories of how she was cut out of opportunities throughout her life. In her family business because of her femaleness. Outside of her family business because of her Jewishness. She did well enough all the same. But like the POC that missed out on most of the benefits of the New Deal, she missed out a lifetime of opportunities. Now wealth that she could not create will not get passed to children that she could create. A member of the "greatest generation" that was sidelined from so much opportunity.

Oh, and regarding your hypotheticals in part one, thanks for beating them to death.

Joe Crowley, formerly number four Democrat in the House, has utterly vanished.

He's waaaaay more out there even if he's not getting media attention like AOC and has more clout than any of us here plunking down words into cyberspace.

He's now a very, very privileged lobbyist for some 1% fat cats. And you can bet your bottom dollar that he's still very intent on vengeance against AOC and still mighty powerful enough to wreak it on her.

I'm luvin' this discussion but it isn't simply an ideological dispute. It's part of a political struggle. And there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that AOC has been threatened with political elimination. It's already been reported that there are folks looking at redistricting and gerrymandering her out of contention to be reelected up the road. Most immediately there's buzz that the party's powerful want to put up and fund a primary candidate against her to prevent her reelection in 2020. Look at the racial demographic of her district. I think that has a heckuva lot more to do with her recent upset victory than any ideological struggle between AOC and Crowley. If TPTB put up a candidate against her, I don't think it will be a more progressive white dude who defends and champions the legacy of the New Deal.

So what do her handlers have her talking about? Hello???? Is it any wonder? She's not only playing IdPol with her electorate but also with her more wealthy donors. And my guess is she would have already endorsed Bernie if she isn't being threatened with a well financed, orchestrated and rehearsed POC even more beholden to 1% folks than AOC will ever be. I mean the choice there for me is clear. With whatever flaws she has, she's still a helluva lot more radical and leftist and socialist than a Black Beto. (Woo, I crack me up sometimes).

And I just gotta ask ya, arendt... can you write anything positive about AOC?

Some people, not so much me, might consider it whining otherwise.

Certainly, if your words somehow find their way to AOC and her handlers, I can pretty much figure how they'd consider your concerns and criticisms. They certainly won't address them.

Finally, is there a decent book out there on IdPol? I'm nominating you to write it. Or put together a book of essays. There are a few other folks who have made some interesting and very valid criticisms of the phenomemon. It would be nice to see them all together in one place.

Some IDPol is to create tribalism, some IS TO PREVENT IT. Ending racial disparities is an attempt to end it.

A serious question- do you hate the civil rights movement for being IDPol? The civil war? Is there any way that we can address race issues that you don't consider IDPol?

You are just so wrong on the history here. The original Civil Rights movement demanded equal justice under law. They wanted color blindness. But, then Richard Nixon stepped in with his Philadelphia Plan. It was a quota plan. This plan was objected to by the mainline Civil Rights leaders as being contrary to their goals.

This plan came under fire during its initial implementation. In November 1968, Elmer Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, ruled it illegal under existing procurement law. On its way out of office, the Johnson administration did not fight this ruling. The incoming Nixon administration, however, saw the program as a political wedge issue which could divide two reliably Democratic constituencies: African Americans and organized labor. The new Assistant Secretary of Labor, Arthur Fletcher, issued a revised version of the Plan. When Staats again declared it illegal, this time stating that the hiring goals too closely resembled quotas, illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,President Nixon fought successfully for the Plan in Congress. After Nixon’s threat to keep both chambers in session over the Christmas break of 1969, Congress approved the Plan. It would also survive a later court challenge by a Philadelphia contractor.

With skilled white construction workers rioting in favor of the president’s war agenda in May 1970, Nixon pivoted, abandoning the Philadelphia Plan. He appointed Peter Brennan, the leader of the New York Building Trades, as Secretary of Labor, and shunted Fletcher aside. Brennan advocated city-based programs encouraging a return to voluntary integration.

If there is IdPol in the Civil Rights movement its because Nixon put it there, for deeply political reasons of "ratfucking". Predictably, a lot of cronies and tokenizers latched onto the concept and muscled out the more principled CR leaders by dangling offers of jobs.

The original plan and its modification were illegal under the very Civil Rights act that you would probably defend. Or maybe you would decide that the CRA was also racist, because it was not full-blown IdPol.

Quotas encourage tokenism and tribalism. That was Nixon's intent, and he succeeded. By latching onto affirmative action, the Civil Rights movement played into Nixon's hands, the same way George Bush played into Obama's Osama Bin Laden's hands - in both cases, instituting policies that undercut the culture being defended.

I really am tired of being lectured about my racism. I am tired of bogus history being thrown in my face.

I don't buy your conspiratorial view that AOC has only brought GND to the national spotlight because she is as you say "a corporate tool" or that she is being handled by dark devious forces. I would rather that Jill Stein could have brought this to national attention. I like and trust Jill more than AOC. But you have to hand it to AOC. She has a way with words. She has had some great twitter moments and verbal jousting that has made her magnetic to the press and given her a great following. Jill and others have surely paved the way for her, but she has put this in the forefront.

Your attribution of agency is all wrong. Jill Stein was literally banned from TV for going to Russia and having dinner with Putin. Jill Stein had zero chance of doing anything because she has been blacklisted (no pun intended). AOC has gotten way more than her fair share of publicity (and Joe Crowley, formerly number four Democrat in the House, has utterly vanished.

The agency does not belong to AOC. The agency belongs to the corporate media who decide who gets covered and what kind of coverage they get. They have a blacklist and a smear-only list. Bernie was on the blacklist at the beginning, graduated to the smear-only list with BLM (who, you may have noticed stopped being covered the minute Bernie "lost"). Today, Tulsi is on the smear-only list. Ilhan Omar is on the "noun, verb, anti-Semitism" "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest" list.

But AOC, marvelous, perky AOC gets all the airtime she wants, even as the rightwing gets more and more worked up about "socialism".

If you don't see a pattern there, I can't help you.

As for her perky tweets, Big Al has chronicled how she was selected by Justice Democrats to be their spokesmodel, how her staff (big JD people) literally wrote her IdPol GND, and probably that setpiece "Let's play a game" speech. Yeah, she's great when she stays on script; and when she wanders off it, her fans can blow it off as inexperience. Heads she wins, tails her opponents lose.

I am not going to bother to go deep regarding point four with you. I have never been able to point out racism to someone who does not want to see it. You may want to quibble over wether the New Deal was "extremely racist" or just mildly so. You may want to put into historical context to explain it away. I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is.

I do not understand what you are criticizing here. I have already agreed to everything you wrote, except that I disagree that putting it in historical context is "explaining it away". Furthermore, you refuse to recognize that an attack on the New Deal today is de facto an attack on all progressives, both in the present and in the past. The New Deal has been attacked by the right since the day it was proposed. Why on earth do we need to give the GOP ammunition to dismantle what little is left of the New Deal, i.e. Social Security? This kind of ultra purity is exactly why I reject IdPol.

My ancestors were Irish. They emigrated here after the Potato famine. I personally do not demand that everyone in the world recognize that the British are racists shits who let people starve to death in huge numbers 150 years ago. Yeah its a fact, but its in the past. It belongs to another time, and it should be judged by the standards of that time. Otherwise, its open season for revisionist demagogues.

Some people forgive and move on, especially when the perpetrators are long dead. People who keep chewing over old wounds create the kind of tribalism one finds in the Balkans. Which is exactly what I think IdPol is deliberately doing.

In your opening statement you suggested that "no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group". One of my friends, a dear sweet 80+ year old Jewish lady would beg to differ. As a woman and as a Jew she tells me stories of how she was cut out of opportunities throughout her life.

First, its an anecdote. Its one person. And your sample size of one has a "confound", she is a woman, another whole category of prejudice. My wife tells me that as late as 1985 she was still fighting low pay and being passed over for promotion.

Second, the woman is barely ten years older than me. By the time I was 30, there were absolutely no bars to Jewish people (I had a Jewish woman for a professor in 1971.) that weren't also bars to non-elite whites (i.e., working class kids who were momentarily useful to the MIC). My grad school classes were full of Jewish students and Jewish teachers. We had visiting professors from Israel, and they were lionized. Those are my anecdotes. See why anecdotes are not evidence?

But like the POC that missed out on most of the benefits of the New Deal, she missed out a lifetime of opportunities. Now wealth that she could not create will not get passed to children that she could create. A member of the "greatest generation" that was sidelined from so much opportunity.

Again, this kind of victimhood sets my teeth on edge. Everyone feels their lives could have been better. (I could tell you a personal story about an event that occurred when I was 10 that changed my life in a negative way, but I don't do whining.) Everyone could point to some injustice and get stuck there for the rest of their lives. IdPoll actively encourages people to that counterproductive behavior.

@Wally
"Finally, is there a decent book out there on IdPol?"
There are certain terms that seem to quickly get categorized as having a value- good or bad- and then be used only in that way.
IDPol
dog whistle
propaganda
etc.
I think words and terms have to continue to mean the same thing and in each situation we have to determine if it is a positive or negative. A friend was recently ripping on Trump about his dog whistle style. Dog whistle only could be something bad to him. I pointed out an example of Obama doing dog whistle, and while he knows I am no longer a fan of Obama, the example was (in our opinion) a very positive version of dog whistle. (btw, the example was Obama's 57 states comment, which I/we took to be dog whistle to the 7 territories that do not have full rights of states. Obama, by saying "57 states" signified to those people that he knew they existed and that he cared about them. Turns out he probably didn't care about them but he at least had the decency to dog whistle that he did.)

Propaganda- Friends who always lambast Russkies for the prop they do then get excited about jets flying over the half time show. And proudly display Norman Rockwell art throughout their home. (And don't get me wrong, I love Rockwell propaganda).

Anyhow, IDPol- is it always a negative? In this case I think AOC supporters would argue that the GND that she is promoting is attempting to be color blind by guaranteeing that it does not continue to perpetuate racist outcomes. As Arendt pointed out regarding the civil rights movement, it was originally designed to be color blind and guarantee equal justice. But how do we work towards something that is color blind without having the discussion that our current system sees color very well? BLM gets a rap for IDPol and being divisive. But I go to BLM events, and in Minneapolis 4th precinct events (Jamar Clark) and I see new allies being formed. If the civil rights movement had a moment to be something so much better than it became, was it NOT practicing IDPol during the era in which the vision was a better one, but then it suddenly WAS practicing IDPol once it started to go bad? And would people who fought for the civil rights movement have fought as hard if they knew the outcome would not have been as good as the original intent? And then isn't that solid rationale for why if we are going to make a big push for some great GND that we should make SURE FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION that it is understood that it won't be allowed to further the cause of institutionalized racism? That is must stand against it from day one?

Sometimes I think we overthink things. I want to end institutionalized racism. And I want to save our planet for future generations. I want to be able to do that simultaneously.

Joe Crowley, formerly number four Democrat in the House, has utterly vanished.

He's waaaaay more out there even if he's not getting media attention like AOC and has more clout than any of us here plunking down words into cyberspace.

He's now a very, very privileged lobbyist for some 1% fat cats. And you can bet your bottom dollar that he's still very intent on vengeance against AOC and still mighty powerful enough to wreak it on her.

I'm luvin' this discussion but it isn't simply an ideological dispute. It's part of a political struggle. And there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that AOC has been threatened with political elimination. It's already been reported that there are folks looking at redistricting and gerrymandering her out of contention to be reelected up the road. Most immediately there's buzz that the party's powerful want to put up and fund a primary candidate against her to prevent her reelection in 2020. Look at the racial demographic of her district. I think that has a heckuva lot more to do with her recent upset victory than any ideological struggle between AOC and Crowley. If TPTB put up a candidate against her, I don't think it will be a more progressive white dude who defends and champions the legacy of the New Deal.

So what do her handlers have her talking about? Hello???? Is it any wonder? She's not only playing IdPol with her electorate but also with her more wealthy donors. And my guess is she would have already endorsed Bernie if she isn't being threatened with a well financed, orchestrated and rehearsed POC even more beholden to 1% folks than AOC will ever be. I mean the choice there for me is clear. With whatever flaws she has, she's still a helluva lot more radical and leftist and socialist than a Black Beto. (Woo, I crack me up sometimes).

And I just gotta ask ya, arendt... can you write anything positive about AOC?

Some people, not so much me, might consider it whining otherwise.

Certainly, if your words somehow find their way to AOC and her handlers, I can pretty much figure how they'd consider your concerns and criticisms. They certainly won't address them.

Finally, is there a decent book out there on IdPol? I'm nominating you to write it. Or put together a book of essays. There are a few other folks who have made some interesting and very valid criticisms of the phenomemon. It would be nice to see them all together in one place.

It's very effective in certain areas, like AOC's district, but I don't think it's gonna work that well beyond such enclaves.

I think using class as a fulcrum brings us together. It can still allow for intersectionality, I don't think that focusing on IdPol does much other than divides us even if it's coming from progressives. It will grate on wc white folks. Does that make them/us racist? Sure seems certain progressives and centrists not only think so but are singing it to the stars every night and every day, too. Like arendt, I'm sick of it.

In some targeted electoral districts it will definitely work. Not so much in others and overall across the country, nah. Of course, that's just like my opinion, man. But I guess it will be tested out in 2024. Otherwise, if you have some connection to AOC, please advise her to ENDORSE BERNIE NOW. TPTB are gonna do her in sooner or later anyway.

#16.2.1.1 "Finally, is there a decent book out there on IdPol?"
There are certain terms that seem to quickly get categorized as having a value- good or bad- and then be used only in that way.
IDPol
dog whistle
propaganda
etc.
I think words and terms have to continue to mean the same thing and in each situation we have to determine if it is a positive or negative. A friend was recently ripping on Trump about his dog whistle style. Dog whistle only could be something bad to him. I pointed out an example of Obama doing dog whistle, and while he knows I am no longer a fan of Obama, the example was (in our opinion) a very positive version of dog whistle. (btw, the example was Obama's 57 states comment, which I/we took to be dog whistle to the 7 territories that do not have full rights of states. Obama, by saying "57 states" signified to those people that he knew they existed and that he cared about them. Turns out he probably didn't care about them but he at least had the decency to dog whistle that he did.)

Propaganda- Friends who always lambast Russkies for the prop they do then get excited about jets flying over the half time show. And proudly display Norman Rockwell art throughout their home. (And don't get me wrong, I love Rockwell propaganda).

Anyhow, IDPol- is it always a negative? In this case I think AOC supporters would argue that the GND that she is promoting is attempting to be color blind by guaranteeing that it does not continue to perpetuate racist outcomes. As Arendt pointed out regarding the civil rights movement, it was originally designed to be color blind and guarantee equal justice. But how do we work towards something that is color blind without having the discussion that our current system sees color very well? BLM gets a rap for IDPol and being divisive. But I go to BLM events, and in Minneapolis 4th precinct events (Jamar Clark) and I see new allies being formed. If the civil rights movement had a moment to be something so much better than it became, was it NOT practicing IDPol during the era in which the vision was a better one, but then it suddenly WAS practicing IDPol once it started to go bad? And would people who fought for the civil rights movement have fought as hard if they knew the outcome would not have been as good as the original intent? And then isn't that solid rationale for why if we are going to make a big push for some great GND that we should make SURE FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION that it is understood that it won't be allowed to further the cause of institutionalized racism? That is must stand against it from day one?

Sometimes I think we overthink things. I want to end institutionalized racism. And I want to save our planet for future generations. I want to be able to do that simultaneously.

It's very effective in certain areas, like AOC's district, but I don't think it's gonna work that well beyond such enclaves.

I think using class as a fulcrum brings us together. It can still allow for intersectionality, I don't think that focusing on IdPol does much other than divides us even if it's coming from progressives. It will grate on wc white folks. Does that make them/us racist? Sure seems certain progressives and centrists not only think so but are singing it to the stars every night and every day, too. Like arendt, I'm sick of it.

In some targeted electoral districts it will definitely work. Not so much in others and overall across the country, nah. Of course, that's just like my opinion, man. But I guess it will be tested out in 2024. Otherwise, if you have some connection to AOC, please advise her to ENDORSE BERNIE NOW. TPTB are gonna do her in sooner or later anyway.

The normal individual surrenders agency to participate in the system to earn the coin to wield limited agency - paid vacation. An individual like me sacrifices that limited agency for potential agency. But given my socioeconomic status, while my potential agency, my legitimate agency is quite limited.

We can run any demographic through the Agency Filter and come up with the same answers: no agency, potential agency, limited agency. I'd say that is more than the 99%. That's 99% of us in the squandered agency bucket.

Funny that the "leadership" of America exists completely outside that bucket of squandered agency. And they seem to make a sport of making us of little to no agency wrestle on the TV for our freedom.

Agency is not binary. There is little to no agency in choosing between artificially limited options. Agency is the opposite of what we have in modern American society. It's also what all of us really crave.

I find agency in this vein very interesting and think that it might be a compelling line of argument... for something.

Some IDPol is to create tribalism, some IS TO PREVENT IT. Ending racial disparities is an attempt to end it.

A serious question- do you hate the civil rights movement for being IDPol? The civil war? Is there any way that we can address race issues that you don't consider IDPol?

You are just so wrong on the history here. The original Civil Rights movement demanded equal justice under law. They wanted color blindness. But, then Richard Nixon stepped in with his Philadelphia Plan. It was a quota plan. This plan was objected to by the mainline Civil Rights leaders as being contrary to their goals.

This plan came under fire during its initial implementation. In November 1968, Elmer Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, ruled it illegal under existing procurement law. On its way out of office, the Johnson administration did not fight this ruling. The incoming Nixon administration, however, saw the program as a political wedge issue which could divide two reliably Democratic constituencies: African Americans and organized labor. The new Assistant Secretary of Labor, Arthur Fletcher, issued a revised version of the Plan. When Staats again declared it illegal, this time stating that the hiring goals too closely resembled quotas, illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,President Nixon fought successfully for the Plan in Congress. After Nixon’s threat to keep both chambers in session over the Christmas break of 1969, Congress approved the Plan. It would also survive a later court challenge by a Philadelphia contractor.

With skilled white construction workers rioting in favor of the president’s war agenda in May 1970, Nixon pivoted, abandoning the Philadelphia Plan. He appointed Peter Brennan, the leader of the New York Building Trades, as Secretary of Labor, and shunted Fletcher aside. Brennan advocated city-based programs encouraging a return to voluntary integration.

If there is IdPol in the Civil Rights movement its because Nixon put it there, for deeply political reasons of "ratfucking". Predictably, a lot of cronies and tokenizers latched onto the concept and muscled out the more principled CR leaders by dangling offers of jobs.

The original plan and its modification were illegal under the very Civil Rights act that you would probably defend. Or maybe you would decide that the CRA was also racist, because it was not full-blown IdPol.

Quotas encourage tokenism and tribalism. That was Nixon's intent, and he succeeded. By latching onto affirmative action, the Civil Rights movement played into Nixon's hands, the same way George Bush played into Obama's Osama Bin Laden's hands - in both cases, instituting policies that undercut the culture being defended.

I really am tired of being lectured about my racism. I am tired of bogus history being thrown in my face.

I don't buy your conspiratorial view that AOC has only brought GND to the national spotlight because she is as you say "a corporate tool" or that she is being handled by dark devious forces. I would rather that Jill Stein could have brought this to national attention. I like and trust Jill more than AOC. But you have to hand it to AOC. She has a way with words. She has had some great twitter moments and verbal jousting that has made her magnetic to the press and given her a great following. Jill and others have surely paved the way for her, but she has put this in the forefront.

Your attribution of agency is all wrong. Jill Stein was literally banned from TV for going to Russia and having dinner with Putin. Jill Stein had zero chance of doing anything because she has been blacklisted (no pun intended). AOC has gotten way more than her fair share of publicity (and Joe Crowley, formerly number four Democrat in the House, has utterly vanished.

The agency does not belong to AOC. The agency belongs to the corporate media who decide who gets covered and what kind of coverage they get. They have a blacklist and a smear-only list. Bernie was on the blacklist at the beginning, graduated to the smear-only list with BLM (who, you may have noticed stopped being covered the minute Bernie "lost"). Today, Tulsi is on the smear-only list. Ilhan Omar is on the "noun, verb, anti-Semitism" "will someone rid me of this troublesome priest" list.

But AOC, marvelous, perky AOC gets all the airtime she wants, even as the rightwing gets more and more worked up about "socialism".

If you don't see a pattern there, I can't help you.

As for her perky tweets, Big Al has chronicled how she was selected by Justice Democrats to be their spokesmodel, how her staff (big JD people) literally wrote her IdPol GND, and probably that setpiece "Let's play a game" speech. Yeah, she's great when she stays on script; and when she wanders off it, her fans can blow it off as inexperience. Heads she wins, tails her opponents lose.

I am not going to bother to go deep regarding point four with you. I have never been able to point out racism to someone who does not want to see it. You may want to quibble over wether the New Deal was "extremely racist" or just mildly so. You may want to put into historical context to explain it away. I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is.

I do not understand what you are criticizing here. I have already agreed to everything you wrote, except that I disagree that putting it in historical context is "explaining it away". Furthermore, you refuse to recognize that an attack on the New Deal today is de facto an attack on all progressives, both in the present and in the past. The New Deal has been attacked by the right since the day it was proposed. Why on earth do we need to give the GOP ammunition to dismantle what little is left of the New Deal, i.e. Social Security? This kind of ultra purity is exactly why I reject IdPol.

My ancestors were Irish. They emigrated here after the Potato famine. I personally do not demand that everyone in the world recognize that the British are racists shits who let people starve to death in huge numbers 150 years ago. Yeah its a fact, but its in the past. It belongs to another time, and it should be judged by the standards of that time. Otherwise, its open season for revisionist demagogues.

Some people forgive and move on, especially when the perpetrators are long dead. People who keep chewing over old wounds create the kind of tribalism one finds in the Balkans. Which is exactly what I think IdPol is deliberately doing.

In your opening statement you suggested that "no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group". One of my friends, a dear sweet 80+ year old Jewish lady would beg to differ. As a woman and as a Jew she tells me stories of how she was cut out of opportunities throughout her life.

First, its an anecdote. Its one person. And your sample size of one has a "confound", she is a woman, another whole category of prejudice. My wife tells me that as late as 1985 she was still fighting low pay and being passed over for promotion.

Second, the woman is barely ten years older than me. By the time I was 30, there were absolutely no bars to Jewish people (I had a Jewish woman for a professor in 1971.) that weren't also bars to non-elite whites (i.e., working class kids who were momentarily useful to the MIC). My grad school classes were full of Jewish students and Jewish teachers. We had visiting professors from Israel, and they were lionized. Those are my anecdotes. See why anecdotes are not evidence?

But like the POC that missed out on most of the benefits of the New Deal, she missed out a lifetime of opportunities. Now wealth that she could not create will not get passed to children that she could create. A member of the "greatest generation" that was sidelined from so much opportunity.

Again, this kind of victimhood sets my teeth on edge. Everyone feels their lives could have been better. (I could tell you a personal story about an event that occurred when I was 10 that changed my life in a negative way, but I don't do whining.) Everyone could point to some injustice and get stuck there for the rest of their lives. IdPoll actively encourages people to that counterproductive behavior.

@wouldsman
You have kinda spelled the problem out, for me, and I am somewhat confused. Gotta say though I am wary of saying much. I got into this pretty much over the same New Deal "discussion" at DKOS. It was more of a smackdown fest. Anyway....

"I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is."

So it was a racist set of programs. It did some good. Because of the times it would have to be racist. So I guess my question is.. in outcomes, The best was POC be included in the New Deal. If POC were not, would it have been better to have killed it entirely because it was racist?

#16 And no worries about you needing to demean my thoughts. I intend to not only not demean YOU or views, but to rather replace them with better narratives. Better narratives that are more useful in working towards a livable climate and ending racial disparities.
A few thoughts:
It is not minority groups (in the sense of IDPol) that our holding our climate hostage. It is 1%ers and their enablers. It is greedy capitalists and corporations that have unchecked power. It isn't the homeless person holding our climate hostage. It isn't Micheal Brown or Ira Hayes holding our climate hostage. As Jimmy D would say, it isn't the powerless that are the problem.

Not all IDPol is bad. Genuine attempts at ending discrimination and injustice can and do happen. I think it is bad when it becomes a screen to hide true intentions or derail progress. The devil is in the details. IDPol can bring us together or it can divide us. It is up to us to decide how we react. In this instance you are using it to attack the person who has most effectively put GND in the national spotlight. In this instance it is your use of IDPol that suggests you don't care about racial disparities. Some IDPol is to create tribalism, some IS TO PREVENT IT. Ending racial disparities is an attempt to end it.

A serious question- do you hate the civil rights movement for being IDPol? The civil war? Is there any way that we can address race issues that you don't consider IDPol?

I don't buy your conspiratorial view that AOC has only brought GND to the national spotlight because she is as you say "a corporate tool" or that she is being handled by dark devious forces. I would rather that Jill Stein could have brought this to national attention. I like and trust Jill more than AOC. But you have to hand it to AOC. She has a way with words. She has had some great twitter moments and verbal jousting that has made her magnetic to the press and given her a great following. Jill and others have surely paved the way for her, but she has put this in the forefront. Jill and Ajamu had my vote and support last election. I wish it was her at the helm of this latest push for a GND. But I am not going to let jealousy that someone else has picked up the baton and ran with it quash my support for it.

Of course the GND is political. And AOC is political. She is an elected representative after all. Trying to promote an agenda that includes legislation.

I think you made a critique ( can't find it now- another post?) of the GND working with corporate interests. That is a critique that I totally agree with. For a GND to be truly worthy of support (IMHO) it will have to curtail all advantages that go to investors, it will have end racial disparities and it will have to have a fighting chance (obviously) as saving the livability of our planet. While the technical details are not in her version yet I don't think you can assume (under her version or anyone else) some of the assumptions that you make in your point 2. That jobs and opportunities will automatically flow to poor and disadvantaged folks in a "good GND". That actually needs to be put in writing to happen and I think that is what AOC is up to with her insistence on ending racial disparities SIMULTANEOUSLY with saving our planet.

I am not going to bother to go deep regarding point four with you. I have never been able to point out racism to someone who does not want to see it. You may want to quibble over wether the New Deal was "extremely racist" or just mildly so. You may want to put into historical context to explain it away. I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is.

In your opening statement you suggested that "no one thinks the Jews in today's America are an oppressed and ostracized group". One of my friends, a dear sweet 80+ year old Jewish lady would beg to differ. As a woman and as a Jew she tells me stories of how she was cut out of opportunities throughout her life. In her family business because of her femaleness. Outside of her family business because of her Jewishness. She did well enough all the same. But like the POC that missed out on most of the benefits of the New Deal, she missed out a lifetime of opportunities. Now wealth that she could not create will not get passed to children that she could create. A member of the "greatest generation" that was sidelined from so much opportunity.

Oh, and regarding your hypotheticals in part one, thanks for beating them to death.

@Snode
I think your question is a good one. I guess I have told you how I feel in this essay. But everyone will have to decide for themselves.
And comparing outcomes to intent.... Even if the intent of any GND is to also prevent racial disparity, we have such institutionalized racism that surely the outcomes will be at least slightly disparate.

I didn't realize this was hashed over at the other site. Never read that. Can only imagine it was brutal.

When I think of fighting for a GND, I think of ObamaCare. At the time of that legislation it was such a wierd thing to be pointy out the lies that the right was telling about it while not really being that supportive of it myself. To this day a friend of mine is a tireless supporter of ACA, always promoting how it literally saved her life. (And it did). But totally missing the tens of thousands of lives that it did not save.

#16.2 You have kinda spelled the problem out, for me, and I am somewhat confused. Gotta say though I am wary of saying much. I got into this pretty much over the same New Deal "discussion" at DKOS. It was more of a smackdown fest. Anyway....

"I love the original New Deal. FDR was a great president. The New Deal was incredibly positive for many many people. WPA worked very hard to have blacks working and benefitting from the program. But sadly, the New Deal was racist. By default of the time it had to be. But it was. FDR did his best. But it is what it is."

So it was a racist set of programs. It did some good. Because of the times it would have to be racist. So I guess my question is.. in outcomes, The best was POC be included in the New Deal. If POC were not, would it have been better to have killed it entirely because it was racist?

@wouldsman
It makes you think and you have done a good job of responding to people even when things get heated up. You also have facts that can't be denied.

I guess, to take up Obamacare....It was poor legislation in that it funneled health through insurance and drug companies, and took funds from the middle class to pay for it. But was fair in that it applied equally to all.

It could have addressed many concerns that affect health in poor communities that are victims of racism and institutional neglect, but didn't. I'm not trying to do gotchas. Lead in the water and paint is real and a health concern, along with poor nutrition, drugs and mental health. Should this have been addressed? Should it have been a deal breaker?

I guess we all draw lines, here we step no further. If the GND and "ID politics" fails, will it be the fault of capitalists, or racists, or white people not caring, wimpy democrats or ? I don't think any legislation today would be able to exclude any group without being called out, like the New Deal. The one thing about stand alone legislation is, on that vote, you know who stood where and why, and whether that politician went over your line. Beyond that, I am not feeling sure about how to think about this.

#16.2.2 I think your question is a good one. I guess I have told you how I feel in this essay. But everyone will have to decide for themselves.
And comparing outcomes to intent.... Even if the intent of any GND is to also prevent racial disparity, we have such institutionalized racism that surely the outcomes will be at least slightly disparate.

I didn't realize this was hashed over at the other site. Never read that. Can only imagine it was brutal.

When I think of fighting for a GND, I think of ObamaCare. At the time of that legislation it was such a wierd thing to be pointy out the lies that the right was telling about it while not really being that supportive of it myself. To this day a friend of mine is a tireless supporter of ACA, always promoting how it literally saved her life. (And it did). But totally missing the tens of thousands of lives that it did not save.

that to be successful a GND must (and as Arendt pointed out will naturally) disproportionately benefit those lower on the socio-economic scale. Society must accept that, meaning it must first admit that.
But conversely to adjust a GND to advantage POC and/or the poor first or foremost (or make the cost burden disproportionate) would automatically doom it to failure. As an illustration look at the Yellow Vests: Macron raised the gasoline tax to promote conservation, but he also lowered taxes on the rich at the same time, transforming a conservation effort into a wealth distribution scam. The workers responded - technically counterproductively, but justly and expectedly. This would have happened even if the trade had been legitimate. This is also why it is the upper middle class that is the most vocal in opposition to poor relief programs - they disproportionately pay the taxes that pay for those programs. Personally I am extremely pessimistic. Even if we come up with a GND that is fair and effective it will not be perceived as such, and it will be manipulated and perverted.

@doh1304
I am not sure that I agree with this:
"that to be successful a GND must (and as Arendt pointed out will naturally) disproportionately benefit those lower on the socio-economic scale"
Naturally? Maybe it depends on how we describe "successful GND".
Considering that a very impactful GND may still not save our planets ability to sustain human life, and considering that in the years that climate is creating massive levels of chaos and destruction the rich and powerful will have resources to help themselves further consolidate wealth and power, and if somehow by the grace of dog humanity pulls thru this and figures out a new way to live, but in the meantime a handful of rich and powerful has consolidated all power and wealth, then is that a successful GND?

that to be successful a GND must (and as Arendt pointed out will naturally) disproportionately benefit those lower on the socio-economic scale. Society must accept that, meaning it must first admit that.
But conversely to adjust a GND to advantage POC and/or the poor first or foremost (or make the cost burden disproportionate) would automatically doom it to failure. As an illustration look at the Yellow Vests: Macron raised the gasoline tax to promote conservation, but he also lowered taxes on the rich at the same time, transforming a conservation effort into a wealth distribution scam. The workers responded - technically counterproductively, but justly and expectedly. This would have happened even if the trade had been legitimate. This is also why it is the upper middle class that is the most vocal in opposition to poor relief programs - they disproportionately pay the taxes that pay for those programs. Personally I am extremely pessimistic. Even if we come up with a GND that is fair and effective it will not be perceived as such, and it will be manipulated and perverted.

@wouldsman
If the rich maintain their power the poor will not go along, and even if they did the very act of maintaining power will deny us the necessary resources.

#17 I am not sure that I agree with this:
"that to be successful a GND must (and as Arendt pointed out will naturally) disproportionately benefit those lower on the socio-economic scale"
Naturally? Maybe it depends on how we describe "successful GND".
Considering that a very impactful GND may still not save our planets ability to sustain human life, and considering that in the years that climate is creating massive levels of chaos and destruction the rich and powerful will have resources to help themselves further consolidate wealth and power, and if somehow by the grace of dog humanity pulls thru this and figures out a new way to live, but in the meantime a handful of rich and powerful has consolidated all power and wealth, then is that a successful GND?

this fake RUSSIA!!! crap. You either overlook what Clinton/Obama/Comey et al, are pulling or you’re with the ‘enemy’ trying to make this place a RUSSIAN!!! colony, Everything is identity politics today. And that’s why we get nowhere regardless of how hard we might try.

Climate change is too damn important to start throwing in everything but the kitchen sink to deal with it. And your girl is just throwing impediments in the way. There is no way the majority of this country will accept that we need to start playing one group against the other economically to bring about climate change. Plus, she’s not about lying to get her way:

When Anderson Cooper confronted her with The Washington Post Fact Checker’s Four-Pinocchio verdict on her claim about $21 trillion in waste at the Pentagon, Ocasio-Cortez offered this (emphasis added):

COOPER: One of the criticisms of you is that-- that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios --

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh my goodness --

COOPER: -- for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

COOPER: But being factually correct is important--

OCASIO-CORTEZ: It’s absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, “Okay, this was clumsy,” and then I restate what my point was. But it’s -- it’s not the same thing as -- as the president lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing at all.

The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim.

this fake RUSSIA!!! crap. You either overlook what Clinton/Obama/Comey et al, are pulling or you’re with the ‘enemy’ trying to make this place a RUSSIAN!!! colony, Everything is identity politics today. And that’s why we get nowhere regardless of how hard we might try.

Climate change is too damn important to start throwing in everything but the kitchen sink to deal with it. And your girl is just throwing impediments in the way. There is no way the majority of this country will accept that we need to start playing one group against the other economically to bring about climate change. Plus, she’s not about lying to get her way:

When Anderson Cooper confronted her with The Washington Post Fact Checker’s Four-Pinocchio verdict on her claim about $21 trillion in waste at the Pentagon, Ocasio-Cortez offered this (emphasis added):

COOPER: One of the criticisms of you is that-- that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios --

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Oh my goodness --

COOPER: -- for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

COOPER: But being factually correct is important--

OCASIO-CORTEZ: It’s absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, “Okay, this was clumsy,” and then I restate what my point was. But it’s -- it’s not the same thing as -- as the president lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing at all.

The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim.